claimID
stringlengths 10
10
| claim
stringlengths 4
8.61k
⌀ | label
stringlengths 1
34
⌀ | claimURL
stringlengths 10
303
| reason
stringlengths 3
31.1k
⌀ | categories
stringlengths 3
315
⌀ | speaker
stringlengths 3
168
⌀ | checker
stringlengths 6
70
⌀ | tags
stringlengths 3
315
⌀ | article title
stringlengths 2
226
⌀ | publish date
stringlengths 1
64
⌀ | climate
stringlengths 5
154
⌀ | entities
stringlengths 6
332
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pomt-07930
|
There have been "at least four incidents where bullets from Mexico have crossed the border."
|
true
|
/texas/statements/2011/jan/28/greg-abbott/attorney-general-greg-abbott-says-bullets-have-cro/
|
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, publicizing his call for Congress to investigate a shooting along the U.S.-Mexico border, said in a press release this month that his demand "comes after at least four incidents where bullets from Mexico have crossed the border, putting at risk the safety and security of Texas residents." We’ve found other claims about cross-border violence — how many people have been killed across the border and whether spillover violence is escalating, for example — to be inflated. So we looked into Abbott’s count. According to an Associated Press news article, authorities from the Hudspeth County Sheriff’s office said road workers near the border "were fired upon by an unknown gunman in Mexico" on Jan. 13. Abbott referred to the incident in his Jan. 14 press release announcing he’d sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, urging their committees to review the Obama administration’s "response to this incident and others like it" and "determine what the federal government can do to protect border residents." Abbott’s press release said: "Gunmen in Mexico fired across the border at U.S. road workers in rural West Texas, in what local law enforcement considers to be an attempt by drug smugglers to scare the workers away so that their smuggling operations in the U.S. could continue." Abbott’s letter offers more detail: "Six months ago, I warned President (Barack) Obama about the life-threatening danger of bullets flying across the U.S.-Mexico border into Texas. At that time, El Paso’s City Hall had just been struck by gunfire from the Mexican side of the border. In August of last year, more stray bullets from inside Mexico struck school buildings at the University of Texas at El Paso." In a June 30 letter to Obama, Abbott said "it was mere luck that the bullets struck buildings rather than bodies." He urged the president to "make border security (his) top priority." Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland provided us with the administration’s response, from Jarrod Bernstein, acting assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. "Border security remains a top priority for this administration," Bernstein wrote Dec. 10, also pointing out that "Obama has deployed 1,200 National Guard troops to the Southwest border." We previously confirmed three of the incidents Abbott referred to while fact-checking earlier statements, including one that Abbott made in August about gunfire in Mexico that month had led El Paso authorities to close a section of U.S. 85. A building on the UTEP campus was struck by a bullet that police suspect was fired during the incident, according to an Aug. 24 El Paso Times news article. Subsequent news articles by the Times reported more than one bullet crossed the border. Earlier, bullets fired on the Mexico side of the border struck El Paso’s City Hall June 29, an incident Gov. Rick Perry referred to in July. According to the El Paso Police Department, one bullet traveled through a ninth-floor window and an interior wall before lodging in a picture frame. Stucco walls of the government building were struck by an additional six rounds, the police said. "Investigators believe that the rounds may be related to (a shooting incident) that occurred in Juarez," a police department press release said. In August, department spokesman Darrel Petry told us the bullets flew during an attack in Juarez on Mexican federal agents. In March, checking Sen. John Cornyn’s claim that spillover violence in Texas is real and escalating, we confirmed that in September 2009, the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College closed for several days after stray bullets from a shootout from the Mexican side of the border hit a car and building on campus. Strickland, who told us that Abbott wasn’t referring to a specific time period when he said at least four incidents have brought bullets across the border, pointed to news reports to confirm the recent incident in West Texas. On Jan. 14, the El Paso Times, reported that the day before, "at least one gunman fired a high-powered rifles across the border" at four road workers toiling about half a mile from the border, east of Fort Hancock. Robert Wilson, a lieutenant with the Hudspeth County Sheriff’s Office, told us authorities found eight bullets around Indian Hot Springs Road, where the men were working. The men weren’t hit, according to the news article. We rate Abbott’s statement as True.
| null |
Greg Abbott
| null | null | null |
2011-01-28T06:00:00
|
2011-01-14
|
['Mexico']
|
tron-03582
|
Virus in an email that claims to be from the Federal Trade Commission
|
none
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/ftc-virus/
| null |
virus
| null | null | null |
Virus in an email that claims to be from the Federal Trade Commission
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
vogo-00209
|
Statement: “There’s a 130 percent increase in the number of gang homicides in the city of San Diego just in the first six months of this year,” San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne said during an interview with KPBS July 31.
|
determination: mostly true
|
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/a-surge-in-gang-murders-fact-check/
|
Analysis: As police push for more funding, Lansdowne and other officials have tried to bolster their case with some alarming statistics about violent crime in San Diego.
| null | null | null | null |
A Surge in Gang Murders: Fact Check
|
August 13, 2012
| null |
['San_Diego']
|
pomt-03911
|
Says "Did you know that the #KeystoneXL project is expected to create 20,000 American jobs, including more than 800 in Oregon?"
|
mostly false
|
/oregon/statements/2013/feb/27/greg-walden/rep-greg-walden-says-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-cr/
|
The Keystone XL pipeline is years from operating and may, in fact, never be built. But that doesn’t mean the 1,700-mile project from Canada’s oil-rich tar sands in Alberta that would bring heavy crude to the Gulf of Mexico isn’t already pumping product, at least rhetorically. The U.S. State Department is expected to decide by the end of March whether to grant a permit that must be issued for the pipeline to be built. (The State Department is involved because the pipeline would cross an international border.) It’s a high-stakes, high volume, politically charged exercise. Environmentalists have protested -- and been arrested -- in recent days in front of the White House as part of their campaign to pressure President Barack Obama to reject the project. The other side has been just as active. That includes U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican who has long supported the pipeline as a way to make the United States more energy self-sufficient and boost the economy -- even in Oregon. Here’s what he tweeted Jan. 29, 2013: "Did you know that the#KeystoneXL project is expected to create 20,000 American jobs, including more than 800 in Oregon?" That’s an attention-grabbing statement for two reasons. The first is the overall number of jobs at a time when the U.S. economy continues to struggle. The second concerns both numbers and geography. The pipeline as proposed would enter the U.S. in Montana and angle toward the Gulf on an eastward track through South Dakota and Nebraska. From there it continues to the Gulf. Even if the route changes, the pipeline will be 1,000 miles (or more) from Oregon. So it’s fair to ask, how will a state so far removed from the project claim 800 jobs? Here’s a second, more basic question: Is the 20,000 "American jobs" cited by Walden and many other supporters of the project real? Let’s take a look. Sure enough, TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline has cited the potential for 20,000 jobs. "The $7 billion oil pipeline is the largest infrastructure project on the books in the U.S. right now," the company said in a 2012 news release. "It would create 20,000 jobs: 13,000 in construction, 7,000 in manufacturing." There have been numerous analyses and copious filings by the company itself in pursuit of the permit. And yet, the conclusion that 20,000 jobs would be created is more than a bit slippery. A 2011 study by Cornell University is absolute: "The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated," it states. One of the more troublesome devices is this: The total is a reflection of something called "job years." Why is that important? A "job year" is a measure of one job performed for one year. That means if a single worker stays on the job for the two years the pipeline construction is expected to last, that single worker counts as two jobs. The measure might be accepted -- and used -- by economists but it’s not what the average person thinks when hearing the word "job." TransCanada says the 20,000 jobs include 13,000 direct jobs, mostly construction and 7,000 indirect jobs. If the project takes two years, it means 6,500 actual direct jobs (plus or minus), which is the number the State Department uses. Calculated that way, the actual number of people employed by the pipeline moves closer to 10,000, or some 6,500 workers in construction and 3,500 in manufacturing. Not 20,000. Here’s another important point: These construction jobs are not permanent and, for the most part, aren’t necessarily local. The positions will disappear when the pipeline is complete. The State Department estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of these jobs can be filled with workers from communities in the pipeline’s path. As for the broader (and always murky) world of indirect jobs, the study -- by Lara Skinner and Sean Sweeney at Cornell’s Global Labor Institute -- raises questions about an analysis by the Perryman Group, which was hired by TransCanada to look at economic impacts. "The Perryman study is based on expenditure and sourcing data provided by TransCanada, and none of that information has been disclosed or subject to independent review," the Cornell study says. By their calculations, Perryman uses a multiplier of 18 job-years for every $1 million spent on the project. Skinner and Sweeney write that a more acceptable multiplier is 11 job-years for every $1 million spent. "So a reasonable estimate of the total incremental U.S. jobs from KXL construction is about one-third of the figure estimated in the Perryman study and used by industry to advocate for the construction of KXL," the Cornell study concludes. Let’s move on to the second part of Walden’s claim, that the pipeline would bring "800 jobs" to Oregon. Unlike a lot of states far removed from the actual pipeline route, there is an official thread to Oregon. In a January 2012 news release promoting the pipeline’s economic value, TransCanada says this: "Construction of Keystone XL is expected to create 7000 manufacturing jobs. Key support companies include: Welspun (pipe from Arkansas), Cameron (valves from Louisiana), Siemens (pumps, motors and related control equipment manufactured in Oregon, Ohio and Indiana) and dozens of other companies manufacturing everything from nuts and bolts to complex electrical control equipment." That’s as specific as it gets, however. When asked for source material to back this claim of 800 jobs, Walden’s office referred to a Chamber of Commerce study. Sure enough, the publication says there will be 838 jobsattributable to the pipelinein Oregon by 2020. (Once again, the use of "jobs" is not what an average person expects.) Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman Blair Latoff Holmes said the number was taken from a study commissioned by the pro-pipeline American Petroleum Institute, written by the Canadian Energy Research Institute and released in June 2011. All of these studies are vulnerable to criticism because the formulas are by necessity often more art than science and the methodology used is not clearly expressed. That’s why the conclusions should be consumed with caution. But tone matters too. In his statement, Walden seems absolute even while there is no clarification that the 20,000 figure refers to "job years," which is much different than the way "job" is commonly understood. Walden has a somewhat stronger case on the Oregon job claim, mostly because TransCanada mentions Oregon by name as one state that would produce equipment needed for the project. As for the number 800, however, it is at best a guess. That’s a pipeline full of uncertainty. We rate this claim Mostly False: It contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
| null |
Greg Walden
| null | null | null |
2013-02-27T03:00:00
|
2013-01-29
|
['United_States', 'Oregon']
|
pomt-12079
|
Two-thirds of the (Hurricane Sandy relief) bill had nothing to do with Sandy.
|
mostly false
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/30/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-mostly-false-claim-two-thirds-sandy-reli/
|
Hurricane Harvey’s torrential rains and flooding have revived memories of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s nay vote on federal relief for superstorm Sandy. MSNBC host Katy Tur challenged Cruz to defend his vote then with his support for relief today. Cruz said he enthusiastically backed aid for Sandy’s victims, but the problem was the particular bill. "It became a $50 billion bill that was filled with unrelated pork," Cruz said Aug. 28. "Two-thirds of the bill had nothing to do with Sandy. And what I said then and still believe now is it's not right for politicians to exploit a disaster and people who are hurting, for them to pay for their own political wishlist." Did two-thirds of the Sandy money have nothing to do with that storm? No. There was some padding, but the data and the assessment of those who studied the bill say the extras amounted to far less than Cruz stated. Cruz’s office sent us its breakout of the 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act to support the assertion that "nearly 70 percent" was "used for non-emergency spending." Before we dive into a couple of the big items on that list, it’s important to note that Cruz said the bulk of the money had nothing to do with Sandy. That’s considerably stronger than saying the money went for "non-emergency spending." Two big pots of money In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy devastated portions of the Mid-Atlantic coast. Congress responded by adding nearly $10 billion to the National Flood Insurance Program. It then passed a relief bill for five times that amount. The bigger package passed without the support of Cruz and most other Republicans. Of the $50.5 billion dollars that Congress appropriated, Cruz’s office cited a Congressional Quarterly article that said $17 billion went for "immediate aid and $33.5 billion for near- and long-term assistance and mitigation." The list from Cruz highlighted $16 billion to the Housing and Urban Development Department’s Community Development Fund. (The actual figure is $15.2 billion according to a spreadsheet from the Recovery and Accountability Board, the agency created to oversee recession recovery spending.) Cruz’s office said that included "any major disaster declarations from 2011, 2012 and 2013." While that might raise concern that the money would go elsewhere, in reality, the funds largely went to the states hit by Sandy. According to HUD, $12.8 billion has been granted to New Jersey, New York and New York City. Add in other east coast states where Sandy did damage -- Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island -- and the total reaches $13 billion. So you could argue that the bucket leaked, but not nearly on the scale flagged by Cruz’s office. The other large chunk of funds was $10.9 billion for mass transit reconstruction. That money has been slow to get out the door. The Recovery Board had just $3.7 billion granted and a bit under $1 billion spent as of March 2015. But that doesn’t prove that the money had nothing to do with Sandy. The Federal Transit Administration told state officials in 2013 that "funds are for specific areas (counties) in 12 states designated as disaster areas for Hurricane Sandy." The Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, assessed the transit relief program in 2014. It said "transit projects can take years to complete. Furthermore, Federal Transit Administration plans to use nearly half of its Disaster Relief Appropriations Act appropriation for resiliency projects (or projects to protect facilities from future damage)." The GAO noted that the funding guidelines allow "transit agencies to improve facilities beyond pre-disaster conditions." This supports the criticism that the money would go beyond immediate disaster relief, but as the report noted, large-scale construction projects have long runways. Taken together, these two buckets of money account for about $24 billion of the $33 billion that was the basis for Cruz saying most of the money was unrelated to Sandy. Two people who analyze disaster relief spending said Cruz was off the mark. "Two-thirds would be a gross overestimate," said Robert Young, a Western Carolina University geologist. "There was clearly extraneous spending, but no way it was two-thirds." The advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense assembled a body of data on spending related to Sandy. The group’s vice president Steve Ellis said no matter how you look at the numbers, two-thirds of the funds "are definitely Sandy related." Ellis said the bigger issue wasn’t pork barrel spending, rather that the bill passed outside of the regular budget process. "It really depends on how you think about emergency," Ellis said. "Two years after Sandy only a fraction of the money had been spent. We would like to see a more deliberative approach to disaster rather than strike while the iron is hot." Our ruling Cruz said that two-thirds of Hurricane Sandy relief money had nothing to do with Sandy. The numbers don’t back that up. Cruz might have been focused on the difference between immediate emergency relief and longer term reconstruction, but his words skipped over that distinction. The data and the assessment of experts show that the bulk of the funds went to the places hit hardest by Sandy. There was a leaky bucket, but not at the level Cruz declared. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Ted Cruz
| null | null | null |
2017-08-30T17:30:20
|
2017-08-28
|
['None']
|
pomt-14834
|
Wisconsin’s 6th congressional "district has more manufacturing jobs than almost any other" in the nation.
|
true
|
/wisconsin/statements/2015/nov/20/glenn-grothman/rep-glenn-grothman-says-his-district-has/
|
In making the transition from state lawmaker to a U.S. Congressman, Republican Glenn Grothman has learned a few things about national issues -- and his new district. As a candidate in 2014, Grothman -- like the other Republicans seeking the open seat -- opposed the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Grothman called the agency a form of "corporate welfare" and promised not to support the institution. But employers in his district told him they are heavy users of the bank, which helps companies sell their goods and services in foreign countries by providing financing for export deals. Ultimately, Grothman voted to support reauthorization of the bank -- a Full Flop on our Flip-O-Meter. At the time, he said he reconsidered after listening to Wisconsin employers who benefit from the bank. And Grothman told us that, since taking office, he’s learned a lot about the 6th District. With about 710,000 residents, it’s a little more than four times as large as his state Senate district. One tidbit he picked up: "This district has more manufacturing jobs than almost any other" in the nation. That claim caught our attention. Is Grothman right? Behind the numbers Before we dig into the numbers, let’s look at some of the manufacturers in his district that urged him to support the Export-Import bank. In all, Grothman said he heard from 42 businesses. Those companies include defense contractor Oshkosh Corp. and crane manufacturer Manitowoc Co. Grothman said he knew manufacturing was important to Wisconsin, but initially assumed that Congressional districts in large cities like Chicago might have a greater share of manufacturers. As backup on the claim the 6th District is among the most manufacturing-heavy in the nation, Grothman pointed us to a January 2015 report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute on the importance of manufacturing jobs. According to the report, which is build on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Wisconsin is the nation’s No. 2 state in percentage of total employment which are manufacturing jobs, behind Indiana. The report said that as of 2013, there were 458,400 manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin, about 16.3 percent of the state workforce. The 6th District has about 80,000 manufacturing jobs out of a workforce of 353,700. That’s a share of 22.6 percent, putting it third, behind two districts in Indiana - one in the far northeast corner and the other in the north western portion of the state. The 6th District is No. 1 in terms of total manufacturing employment, followed by the 3rd District in Indiana which has 76,200. Four Wisconsin congressional districts (the 1st, 5th 6th, and 8th) are in the top 11 nationally, in terms of manufacturing jobs as a share of total employment. All are represented in the House by Republicans. The 1st is in the southern and eastern part of the state, represented by Paul Ryan; the 5th, represented by Jim Sensenbrenner, includes suburban counties north and west of Milwaukee; the 6th is represented by Grothman and the 8th is in northeastern Wisconsin, represented by Reid Ribble. Our rating Grothman’s introduction to Washington included some insights --and political pressure -- about his district that caused him to switch his position on the Export-Import Bank. In explaining his switch, he said the 6th District has more manufacturing jobs than almost any other other in the nation. He’s right both in terms of the percent of jobs in manufacturing (3rd) and the raw number (1st). We rate the statement True.
| null |
Glenn Grothman
| null | null | null |
2015-11-20T13:23:51
|
2015-10-30
|
['None']
|
pomt-07066
|
Rep. Jim Renacci’s plan to end Medicare also puts nursing home care for 3,000 seniors in the district in immediate jeopardy.
|
mostly false
|
/ohio/statements/2011/jun/28/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/dccc-says-rep-jim-renacci-plan-would-jeopardize-nu/
|
The "Path to Prosperity" budget document that Republicans in the House of Representatives adopted in April has become a path to propaganda for Democrats who are using the proposals it contains in an effort to discredit its Republican supporters. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blitzed the media June 8 with news releases that claimed particular GOP congressmen who voted for the plan would jeopardize nursing home care for senior citizens in their district. One targeted freshman Rep. Jim Renacci from Ohio’s 16th Congressional District. "Rep. Jim Renacci’s plan to end Medicare also puts nursing home care for 3,000 seniors in the district in immediate jeopardy," the news release said. It asserted the "Republican-Renacci plan" might force grandma "to move out of the nursing home because families can no longer afford her long-term care." This seemed like an odd claim to make about Renacci, an entrepreneur who built a personal fortune of more than $30 million through businesses that included a chain of nursing homes. PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look. A popular soundbite has been to label the GOP plan as a plan to kill Medicare. This claim, though, also ties in nursing home care funded by Medicaid. Medicaid is the nation’s largest payer for nursing home care, bankrolling 64 percent of nursing home patients and 13 percent of assisted living residents, according to the American Health Care Association, a trade group for the nursing home industry. The Republican plan would convert the federal share of Medicaid into block grants. Republicans say that would maximize states’ flexibility to focus benefits on specific needs. Presently, the only option for states to reduce costs, they say, is across-the-board cuts in reimbursements to doctors, which leads to fewer doctors willing to see Medicaid patients. The GOP budget would initially give states the same allotment for Medicaid they get today, only in block grant form. The change would start in 2013. The amount would grow each year to account for inflation and population. However, Medicaid expenditures would not grow as much as they would under current law. In support of their claim, The DCCC referred us to a series of reports produced by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which aim to break down the district-by-district impact the GOP budget would have on Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats contend the GOP proposal, with its new flexibility for the states, would mean that states no longer have to abide by current federal requirements for the money’s use, thus jeopardizing nursing home care. The Medicaid report for Renacci's district says 3,000 constituents have nursing home care paid by Medicaid, a figure it got from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending for Medicaid under the House GOP plan would be 35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than it would be if the program was left alone. Its implementation would keep federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP - the Children’s Health Insurance Program - under 6 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, rather than having it rise to around 12 or 14 percent, as would be expected under current scenarios. This would make Medicaid funding more predictable from a federal perspective, but it would lead to greater uncertainty for states as to whether the federal contribution would be sufficient during periods of economic weakness. Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would also be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts, the CBO says, although states might be able to achieve greater efficiencies with the flexibility provided by the changes. Both AHCA and AARP fear that converting Medicaid to a block grant program would have negative effects on nursing home patients. An issue brief from the nursing home group says block grants "threaten care for frail seniors and the disabled." Whether nursing home care would continue to be paid for by Medicaid would be up to individual states if the program is converted to a block grant, AARP state government relations director JoAnn Lamphere said in an interview. "If you recognize that the bulk of Medicaid spending goes to nursing homes, you would have to conclude that nursing homes would be severely impacted," Lamphere said. So where does that leave the DCCC’s claim on the Truth-O-Meter? It’s impossible to precisely know how much funding would be cut for nursing home care, since each state would make that decision. But given that the CBO predicts funding levels would be 35 percent lower under this plan than under the current system by 2022 and 49 percent lower by 2030, and that 64 percent of the nation’s nursing home care is paid for by Medicaid, it’s reasonable to expect some cuts in coverage. The claim says nursing home care would be put in immediate jeopardy, but the language in the proposal delays the changeover until 2013 -- well over a year away. The DCCC refers to the GOP budget plan as "Rep. Jim Renacci’s plan to end Medicare," but Renacci had no role in drafting the plan. It was authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Renacci merely voted for it on the House of Representatives floor. And PolitiFact has repeatedly rated Democratic claims that the GOP plan would "end Medicare" as False, concluding the major alterations it entails don’t actually end the program. There is an element of truth to the DCCC claim, but it also ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. The DCCC packs a lot of misinformation into a single sentence. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate it Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.
| null |
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
| null | null | null |
2011-06-28T10:00:00
|
2011-06-08
|
['Medicare_(United_States)']
|
pomt-09931
|
Obama has more czars than the Romanovs.
|
true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/12/john-mccain/McCain-says-Obama-has-more-czars-than-Romanovs/
|
How many czars does it take to run the federal government? More and more, it seems. In a Twitter message on May 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain took this poke at the Obama administration: "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs — who ruled Russia for 3 centuries. Romanovs 18, cyberczar makes 20." First of all, yes, John McCain — the guy criticized during the presidential campaign for being computer illiterate — is tweeting. But what about the czars? It sure seems like we keep reading about one czar after another being appointed to oversee the auto industry, the Great Lakes, and the closure of Gitmo, and we wondered: Just how many czars does the Obama administration actually have? First off, the Obama administration doesn't usually call any of these people czars. We only found two instances of President Barack Obama using the term, once in an April 15, 2009, interview with CNN En Espanol when he talked about the role of his "border czar," and once during the campaign when he promised to appoint an "autism czar" to coordinate a nationwide autism effort (he hasn't yet). And in announcing Obama's nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Vice President Joe Biden referred to the position as "our nation's drug czar." We're sure there are more, but the point is that, by and large, you don't often hear the administration talking about its czars. In fact, the administration has at times gone to some lengths to avoid the moniker, as was the case in this somewhat humorous (in an inside-the-Beltway sorta way) exchange between a reporter and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on June 10, 2009: Reporter: On Ken Feinberg, I think that he's maybe the 20th czar-type position you've named. Gibbs: No, I think the title is "special master." So who exactly qualifies as a czar? As best we can tell, it's whenever someone in the media says so. You can identify a guy as "Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology," but it's a lot easier on everyone to just say "Science Czar." And "Special Master" sounds like Richie Rich's best friend. So the title of czar is largely arbitrary media shorthand for "It's this person's job to make sure (blank) goes right." And we think everyone can agree that "Terrorism Czar" sounds way cooler than "Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security." Below, we have compiled a wildly unscientific list of Obama administration "czars." But we're not the first. Talking Points Memo has a slideshow of Obama's "czars." They count 23 . And ForeignPolicy.com came up with at least 18. We've got 28. Some of these "czars" are carryover positions from previous administrations. And "czars" go way back in presidential history. Roosevelt had a slew of so-called czars. But to the extent that Obama has created a number of new positions to oversee various issues and to cut through bureaucratic red tape, he seems to have a lot more czars than his predecessors. Or you could argue that the media has just seized on a new buzzword it likes. We're not going to wade into the debate about whether having more czars is a good idea, but Fox ran a story about concerns some lawmakers have with it. We're just fact-checking McCain's claim that Obama has more czars than the Romanovs. According to the World Book Encyclopedia , there were, as McCain said, 18 Romanov czars, starting with Michael Romanov in 1613 and ending with Nicholas II, who was killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. As for Obama's czars, we've got 28 who have been referred to as a czar ... somewhere. Undoubtedly some will take issue with some of the "czars" on our list, but we think McCain is on solid ground. He earns a True. Name Czar Title Actual (boring) Title Herb Allison TARP Czar Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Alan Bersin Border Czar Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs Dennis Blair Intelligence Czar Director of National Intelligence John Brennan Terrorism Czar Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security Carol Browner Energy Czar Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Adolfo Carrion, Jr Urban Affairs Czar Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs Ashton Carter Weapons Czar Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Aneesh Chopra Technology Czar Chief Technology Officer Jeffrey Crowley AIDS Czar Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy Cameron Davis Great Lakes Czar Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan Nancy-Ann DeParle Health Czar Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Earl Devaney Stimulus Accountability Czar Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board Joshua DuBois Faith-based Czar Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Kenneth Feinberg Pay Czar Special Master on executive pay Danny Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay J. Scott Gration Sudan Czar Special Envoy to Sudan Richard Holbrooke Afghanistan Czar Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan John Holdren Science Czar Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology Van Jones Green Jobs Czar Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality Gil Kerlikowske Drug Czar Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Vivek Kundra Information Czar Federal Chief Information Officer George Mitchell Mideast Peace Czar Special Envoy to the Middle East Ed Montgomery Car Czar Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers Dennis Ross Mideast Policy Czar Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia Gary Samore WMD Czar Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism Todd Stern Climate Czar Special Envoy for Climate Change Cass Sunstein Regulatory Czar Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Paul Volcker Economic Czar Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board
| null |
John McCain
| null | null | null |
2009-06-12T18:33:34
|
2009-05-30
|
['Barack_Obama']
|
pomt-11964
|
Bryan County, Ga., has "corrupted voter rolls."
|
false
|
/georgia/statements/2017/oct/04/public-interest-legal-foundation/anti-vote-fraud-group-levels-false-charge-corrupte/
|
An Indianapolis-based advocacy group issued a news release Sept. 25 with a stunning headline: "24 states show corrupted voter rolls." "Voter fraud begins with corrupted voter rolls," said J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. "Our nation’s voter rolls have records that cannot be distinguished between living or dead; citizen or alien; resident or relocated. We hear about possible cyber-attacks, but we aren’t doing enough to fix voter rolls that are certainly corrupt." The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which aims to keep voter rolls as up-to-date as possible, had sent letters to nearly 250 counties. Bryan County was among them. The group’s letter to county elections supervisor Cindy Reynolds said, "Based on our research, your jurisdiction is in apparent violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act." It explained that the letter was the required statutory notice "prior to the commencement of any lawsuit." The county’s key problem, according to the foundation, was that it had "significantly more voters on the registration roles than it has eligible, living citizen voters." In this fact-check, we looked at whether Bryan County’s voter rolls are corrupted, as the news release charged. The short answer is that the situation in Bryan County is cleaner than the foundation would have us believe. The fact is, maintaining the voter rolls in Georgia is an ongoing process and the foundation counted names on the Bryan County list that were flagged for possible removal. The active vs. inactive voter difference Foundation spokesman Logan Churchwell told us that his group relied on the latest federal survey from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. That spreadsheet showed 20,285 active voters and 5,622 inactive ones in Bryan County on the rolls for the November 2016 election. What are inactive voters? People who haven’t voted in the past two elections, have been sent a letter to confirm their registration and haven’t responded to that letter. The foundation added the two groups and reported a total of 25,907 voters. It then compared that to the number of county residents age 18 and older. Using the latest Census figures, that was 25,643. Not all of them would necessarily be eligible to vote, but "that gives the county the maximum benefit of the doubt," Churchwell said. With 264 more names on the rolls than the total of potentially eligible voters, the foundation included Bryan County on its list of those with corrupted voter rolls. Including the inactive voters is essential to that finding. The problem evaporates based on active voters. Judged against that, there are 5,358 fewer names on the rolls than the total potentially eligible population. Churchwell defended his group’s methods, saying "all a person on the inactive list needs to do is respond and like that, they are back on the rolls." The county can’t "pretend they aren’t there," he added. Keeping the rolls current The relationship between voter rolls and residents is constantly in flux. Many people move away and some die, to give the two biggest factors. The same survey used by the foundation gives a glimpse into how election officials try to keep up. Importantly for this fact-check, it also shows what the size of the inactive list can tell us about changes in the active voter rolls. The foundation counted all inactive voters, but there’s good reason to question that. In Georgia, the state maintains the voter rolls, not the counties. Between 2014 and 2016, the state sent 4,323 letters asking people in Bryan County to confirm their voting status. In the same period, the state removed 2,579 names. Put another way, take about 60 percent of the inactive total and you get the number of names that will be dropped. Apply that to the 2,622 on the November 2016 inactive list and you’d expect that 1,542 names would drop from the rolls. That alone would put the number of voters below the number of potentially eligible voters by about 1,200. In fact, Bryan County election supervisor Reynolds said the state cut 2,934 names from the rolls as of September 2017. The state was more aggressive than it had been over the past two years. "This is a regular process by the Secretary of State provided by Georgia laws to ensure that our rolls are as accurate as possible," Reynolds said in a statement. We wondered how often the group’s assertions led to successful lawsuits. Churchwell told us that in 2015, his group targeted 141 counties. Of those, they brought legal action against eight, resulting in one settlement and two consent decrees to improve roll maintenance practices. Our ruling The Public Interest Legal Foundation said Bryan County had corrupted voter rolls because it had more voters registered than the eligible population in the county. The foundation relied on the number of voters listed as inactive to reach that conclusion. That is a worst-case approach that does not account for the reality of voter roll maintenance in Georgia. Based on all the data, there’s no evidence that the Bryan County rolls are corrupted. The group took a number that reflected an effort to keep the voter rolls current and used it to cast the county in a bad light. The foundation used data selectively and ignored ongoing efforts to clean up the voter rolls to reach an exaggerated conclusion. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Public Interest Legal Foundation
| null | null | null |
2017-10-04T09:30:25
|
2017-09-25
|
['Bryan_County,_Georgia', 'Georgia_(U.S._state)']
|
snes-05667
|
Irena Sendler, credited with saving 2,500 Polish Jews from the Holocaust, was a candidate for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize but lost out to Al Gore.
|
mixture
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irena-sendler/
| null |
War/Anti-War
| null |
David Mikkelson
| null |
Irena Sendler
|
3 July 2008
| null |
['Nobel_Peace_Prize', 'Irena_Sendler', 'Al_Gore', 'The_Holocaust', 'Jews', 'Poland']
|
goop-00749
|
Jennifer Aniston Asking Courteney Cox To Set Her Up On Dates?
|
1
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-courteney-cox-set-up-dates/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Jennifer Aniston Asking Courteney Cox To Set Her Up On Dates?
|
11:40 am, June 26, 2018
| null |
['Jennifer_Aniston']
|
hoer-01216
|
Google Earth Finds SOS From Woman Stranded on Deserted Island
|
fake news
|
https://www.hoax-slayer.net/hoax-google-earth-finds-sos-woman-stranded-deserted-island/
| null | null | null |
Brett M. Christensen
| null |
HOAX Google Earth Finds SOS From Woman Stranded on Deserted Island
|
December 19, 2017
| null |
['None']
|
tron-00129
|
Health Dangers of Keurig Coffee Machines
|
misleading!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/health-dangers-of-keurig-coffee-machines-misleading/
| null |
9-11-attack
| null | null | null |
Health Dangers of Keurig Coffee Machines
|
Jan 25, 2016
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-03912
|
Comic strip says government study shows Head Start "has little or no impact on the children it’s supposed to help."
|
mostly true
|
/texas/statements/2013/feb/26/mallard-fillmore/mallard-fillmore-says-government-study-shows-head-/
|
The self-described "right-leaning duck" who appears on funny pages nationwide provoked PolitiFact Texas readers earlier this month. Several asked us to look into the "Mallard Fillmore" comic strip’s statements about Head Start, such as this from the Feb. 9, 2013, cartoon: "A government study has found that the vaunted ‘Head Start’ program actually has little or no impact on the children it’s supposed to help." All is not lost, though: The "Fillmore Foundation" found the program makes Head Start supporters "feel really really good about themselves," joked the strip. It includes a footnote citing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; other "Mallard" Head Start comics between Feb. 6 and Feb. 13 do the same or cite the conservative Heritage Foundation’s website. The federal Head Start program was launched by Congress in the mid-1960s to help preschool-age children from low-income families. With an annual budget of $8 billion, it offers such children educational activities, medical/dental care, meals and safe playtime. Government’s six-year study King Features Syndicate spokeswoman Claudia Smith told us by email that "Mallard" cartoonist Bruce Tinsley was speaking about a new report that Health and Human Services issued on its 2002-08 study of Head Start’s effects, which Congress mandated in 1998 when it continued the program. To determine how the program affected school readiness and when or how it was most effective, the department tracked 4,667 students in 23 states whose families applied to get them into Head Start. The children, all aged 3 or 4, were randomly assigned to a Head Start program or a control group. Data were gathered on measures of cognitive and social-emotional development, health and parenting practices. An earlier, Jan. 15, 2010, report covered results from fall 2002 through the end of the students’ first-grade years. The 3-year-olds could have logged as much as two years in Head Start, the 4-year-olds only one; children not initially assigned to Head Start might have participated in other preschool programs or reapplied. At the end of preschool, the Head Start 3-year-olds showed advantages, mainly in language and literacy categories such as naming letters and oral comprehension, over non-Head Start 3-year-olds. Fewer positive outcomes were recorded for the 4-year-olds, and both age groups’ advantages had faded by the end of first grade, according to the report. Results updated in late 2012 The department’s October 2012 report, released Dec. 21, 2012, updated study results through the end of third grade. And like the first-grade results, the 2012 report said that "there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found. ...The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children." We tallied the results for children assigned to Head Start as compared to the control group: The 3-year-olds, who had the chance to stay in Head Start for two years: At the end of Head Start, they had 15 positive results out of 33 categories for which data was gathered (45 percent positive). By the end of third grade, they showed two positive results and one negative result out of 48 categories (4 percent positive, 2 percent negative). There was no significant change in most categories. The 4-year-olds, who would only have been able to attend Head Start for one year: At the end of Head Start, they showed nine positive results out of 33 categories (27 percent positive). By the end of third grade, they showed three positive and four negative results out of 48 categories (6 percent positive, 8 percent negative). Most measures showed no statistically significant change. To sum that up: The Head Start age groups were doing 45 percent (the 3-year-olds) or 27 percent (the 4-year-olds) better than their peers at the end of Head Start. By the end of third grade, though, the results were only a few percentage points apart and the Head Start children had fallen behind in several categories. Among the negative results at the end of third grade, the 3-year-olds showed a drop in "school promotion" (advancing to the next grade) and the 4-year-olds showed increased "emotional symptoms" and declines in relationships with teachers and peers. Evaluating the research We checked to see if the study was considered solid and how it fit into other research on the topic. Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child interpreted the 2010 findings in an undated "brief" that said in part, "Overall, the study was sound scientifically, but there has been considerable debate over what its findings mean." The fact that Head Start advantages disappeared by the end of first grade, it said, apparently meant that "the comparison children were able to catch up to their peers in the Head Start treatment group during the first two years of school." Two experts took issue with one aspect of the study’s results: Even if children exited or entered Head Start after the study began, they were still counted as part of the group to which they were first assigned. The 2012 report said 15 percent to 20 percent of the children assigned to the Head Start group exited the program, while 14 percent to 17 percent of children who started in the control group were later admitted to Head Start. Retired early-education researcher John Love, who directed a 1995-2002 study on Early Head Start (the federal program for low-income children up to age 3), told us by email, "This isn't so much a criticism of the researchers ... but a fact that those who want to make sense of the findings should be aware of." The report included estimates that were adjusted to account for this issue, he said. According to the report, that adjustment made "no change in the statistical significance of the estimates" or "the overall patterns found in the main analysis." Steve Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, raised the same concern. By email, he told us that in his view, it means "the results of the study are somewhat misinterpreted" and the effects of Head Start are underestimated. Did ‘Mallard’ get it right? Overall, Love said, the comic strip’s description of the study was close but oversimplified. "That is a fair summary of what they found, as far as it goes," he said, but it’s an inadequate description because there were some significant results within subgroups; for example, black 4-year-olds showed more improvement than their peers, with effects lasting until the end of third grade. Such findings, Love said, could help determine "what works for whom under what conditions." Barnett said other research has yielded varied results. "Some find that other studies are persuasive that Head Start has larger impacts, and there certainly are other studies that find these," he said. "On the other side are people who would be closer to the duck." He emailed us his review of major U.S. and other studies on early educational intervention for children in poverty that appeared in the Aug. 19, 2011, issue of the international journal Science. There, Barnett considered decades of research showing that the Head Start study and three others all showed declining benefits to children as they got older. In the Head Start study and Love’s Early Head Start study, Barnett wrote, effects "start small and disappear shortly after school entry." Two smaller and older studies showed effects that were "relatively large and long-lasting," the review said: a mid-1960s look at Perry Preschool in Michigan and a late-’70s/early ‘80s examination of a North Carolina preschool program. Barnett told us, however, that the longer-lasting benefits indicated by the older studies might reflect the fact that fewer children then had access to quality preschool or health insurance. Our ruling "Mallard Fillmore" said a government study shows Head Start "has little or no impact on the children it’s supposed to help." That could be an accurate description of the longer-term results -- relatively few positive outcomes and some negative ones -- measured at the end of first and third grades. Still, the Head Start children had significant advantages over their peers when they exited preschool and started kindergarten. We rate the duck’s proclamation as Mostly True.
| null |
Mallard Fillmore
| null | null | null |
2013-02-26T18:57:45
|
2013-02-09
|
['None']
|
pomt-06842
|
The government's twice the size it was 10 years ago. It's 30 percent bigger than it was when (Barack) Obama became president.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/tom-coburn/sen-tom-coburn-says-government-twice-size-it-was-d/
|
EDITOR’S NOTE: Upon further consideration, we have changed the rating on this item from Mostly True to Half True. The new analysis is below. Our previous posting is archived here. On the July 24, 2011, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to give some perspective on the size of federal spending -- a central factor in the current debate over raising the debt ceiling. Addressing host David Gregory, Coburn said, "David, everybody's talking about the symptoms of our problem instead of the real disease. The government's twice the size it was 10 years ago. It's 30 percent bigger than it was when (Barack) Obama became president. The problem is that we're spending way too much money, and it's not hard to cut it without hurting entitlement benefits. But we don't have anybody that wants to do that without getting a tax increase." We wondered whether Coburn was right that the size of government has doubled over the past 10 years. We began by looking at the size of outlays by the federal government, even though Coburn didn’t specify which level of government he was talking about. (Coburn communications director John Hart later confirmed that he had meant to refer to just the federal government.) We also decided to use outlays as our yardstick -- rather than, say, government employees or regulatory burden, as some readers later suggested -- since Coburn went on to say, "we're spending way too much money, and it's not hard to cut it without hurting entitlement benefits." Here are annual figures from the Office of Management and Budget for total federal outlays: Fiscal year 2001: $1.86 trillion Fiscal year 2002: $2.01 trillion Fiscal year 2003: $2.16 trillion Fiscal year 2004: $2.29 trillion Fiscal year 2005: $2.47 trillion Fiscal year 2006: $2.66 trillion Fiscal year 2007: $2.73 trillion Fiscal year 2008: $2.98 trillion Fiscal year 2009: $3.52 trillion Fiscal year 2010: $3.46 trillion Fiscal year 2011 (estimate): $3.82 trillion So, doubling the 2001 outlays over 10 years would have meant a 2011 figure of $3.72 trillion. Since the actual figure is higher than that, Coburn is right that the cost of government has doubled over the past decade. In our initial analysis, we stopped there and did not adjust these figures for inflation. After readers pointed this out to us, we ran the inflation-adjustment calculations and determined that the fiscal 2011 federal outlay of $3.82 trillion was equivalent to $3 trillion in 2001 dollars. That produced an increase in federal outlays of 60 percent over 10 years. That’s still a significant increase, but short of double. We also calculated that government outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product, rose from 18.2 percent in 2001 to 25.3 percent in 2011 -- an increase of 39 percent, which is also not double. Despite our initial focus on non-inflation-adjusted numbers, we have since decided that our readers had a point, and that Coburn would have been better off using inflation-adjusted numbers. So we have decided to change our ruling. Meanwhile, we also looked at Coburn’s second claim, that government expenditures are 30 percent bigger than they were when Obama became president. For this one, it depends when you start the clock. We’ll start with non-inflation-adjusted numbers. If you use fiscal 2008 as the baseline -- which we confirmed with Coburn’s staff was his intention -- then the comparison is just about right. Federal outlays increased by 28 percent between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2011, which is just below the 30 percent Coburn cited. However, fiscal 2008 ran from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2008, ending almost four months before Obama took office. The OMB only offers figures by fiscal year, so we can’t pinpoint a number that’s pegged precisely to when Obama took office. If instead you use as a baseline fiscal 2009 -- which started on Oct. 1, 2008 -- then federal outlays increased by about 9 percent, or well below what Coburn said. The inflation-adjusted numbers are a 22 percent increase if you start with 2008, and 3 percent if you start with 2009. Clearly, the shift of the calculation by just one year makes a big difference in the result. We also considered whether Coburn intended to blame Obama for this spending increase. This was a tough call. Re-reading his claim, we don’t feel that his use of the inauguration of a new president as the cutoff point necessarily invokes blame. The entirety of Coburn’s comment encompasses government growth over a 10-year period, most of which was clearly under a Republican president, George W. Bush, and not Obama. And the inauguration of a new president is a pretty natural dividing line for making mathematical comparisons. "No one has a more consistent record of being a nonpartisan critic of spending than Coburn," said Coburn’s communications director Hart. "He has been criticizing Republican and Democratic spending for many years." We agreed with this assessment, so we gave Coburn the benefit of the doubt on whether he intended to place the blame for government growth on Obama. And we stand by that decision. So what's the bottom line? We don’t think that Coburn was entirely wrong to use non-inflation-adjusted dollars, but it would have been better if he -- and we -- had adjusted for inflation. Doing it this way still means there was a significant increase in government over the period he studied, but not as high as he had indicated. On balance, we have decided to lower our ruling from Mostly True to Half True.
| null |
Tom Coburn
| null | null | null |
2011-08-05T15:52:21
|
2011-07-24
|
['Barack_Obama']
|
tron-00518
|
$1.50 Cheesecake at Cheesecake Factory
|
truth!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/cheesecake/
| null |
appeals
| null | null | null |
$1.50 Cheesecake at Cheesecake Factory
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
snes-03831
|
Actor Robert De Niro blasted Donald Trump in a video meant to encourage people to vote.
|
true
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/robert-de-niro-went-off-on-donald-trump/
| null |
Politicians
| null |
Bethania Palma
| null |
Robert De Niro ‘Went Off’ on Donald Trump
|
10 October 2016
| null |
['Robert_De_Niro', 'Donald_Trump']
|
pomt-01726
|
The leader of ISIS was imprisoned by American troops and ordered released to Iraq by Obama administration in 2009.
|
false
|
/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/06/james-woods/actor-james-woods-obama-ordered-release-islamic-st/
|
When James Woods isn't busy acting and doing voiceovers for video games and Family Guy episodes, he tweets from the right-end of the political spectrum. One of his latest messages revives the inaccurate claim that President Barack Obama let the head of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) slip through our fingers in 2009. ISIS, which has simplified its name to Islamic State, is the well-armed Sunni force that has claimed broad swaths of land in Iraq. Recently, it defeated seasoned, if ill-equipped, Kurdish forces in battles for two key towns. On Aug. 5, Woods, no fan of Obama, tweeted to his 145,000 followers, "The leader of ISIS was imprisoned by American troops and ordered released to Iraq by Obama administration in 2009." Woods followed that up with, "Clearly Obama did not hand select the leader of ISIS for release to the Iraqis in 2009. Obama's weak kneed foreign policy is the issue." We looked at an almost identical claim about the head of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in June. Baghdadi was held by U.S. forces at a detention facility in Iraq called Camp Bucca, but not when Woods said. According to the Defense Department, Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009. "Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as 'Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi' was held as a 'civilian internee' by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon told us in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended 'unconditional release' of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time." In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads Islamic State was set free in 2004, long before Obama took office, and he was not recaptured. How did the 2009 version get started? In mid June, there were several articles -- from Slate, and NBC among others -- that placed Baghdadi at Camp Bucca in 2009 (when Obama would have been president). However, all the talk tracked back to a Daily Beast interview with Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca. That article said King knew Baghdadi at the camp and that he didn’t expect to see him become the leader of a spectacularly vicious and brutal movement. "I'm not surprised that it was someone who spent time in Bucca but I'm a little surprised it was him," King said. "He was a bad dude, but he wasn't the worst of the worst." In this storyline, Baghdadi was handed over to Iraqi justice system late in 2009 shortly before Camp Bucca closed. ABC News questioned King’s recollection, citing a "a U.S. official" that Baghdadi was not in American custody in 2009. "I could be mistaken," King told ABC News, "but I’m 99 percent. He’s a dead ringer for the guy I had the run-in with … His face is very familiar." King declined to comment to PunditFact. For the record, even if King's memory is better than the Defense Department's paper trail, Obama didn’t order Baghdadi released as much as enforce an agreement brokered by President George W. Bush. Before Bush left office, his administration signed a contract between the United States and Iraq that guaranteed that the United States would give up custody of virtually every detainee. Our ruling Woods said Obama ordered the release of the leader of ISIS, now called Islamic State, in 2009. The Defense Department says the release took place in 2004 and Obama had nothing to do with it. We rate the claim False.
| null |
James Woods
| null | null | null |
2014-08-06T16:43:07
|
2014-08-05
|
['United_States', 'Iraq', 'Barack_Obama']
|
snes-03953
|
Radiation from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused 100% infant mortality among orca whales.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-radiation-causes-100-infant-mortality-among-orca-whales/
| null |
Critter Country
| null |
Dan Evon
| null |
Fukushima Radiation Causes 100% Infant Mortality Among Orca Whales
|
26 September 2016
| null |
['None']
|
goop-01818
|
Chris Martin To Walk Gwyneth Paltrow Down The Aisle?
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/chris-martin-walk-gwyneth-paltrow-down-aisle-wedding-brad-falchuk/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Chris Martin To Walk Gwyneth Paltrow Down The Aisle?
|
2:23 pm, January 16, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-08710
|
I asked (then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) how many people had died and she did not know the answer to that question.
|
pants on fire!
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/03/barbara-boxer/sen-barbara-boxer-says-condoleezza-rice-didnt-know/
|
During a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board on Aug. 31, 2010, Sen. Barbara Boxer was asked about a controversial comment she made in 2007 to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Rice not paying a "personal price" in the Iraq War because she did not have any immediate family members serving in the military. Rice and a number of political pundits later claimed Boxer's comment was an unfair jab because Rice didn't have children. In the editorial board meeting, Boxer, a California Democrat, sought to set the record straight about her comments, but then added a bit of revisionist history, saying she was criticizing Rice because she didn't know how many American troops had died in Iraq. In fact, Rice never said that. Let's back up to 2007. During the Jan. 11, 2007, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Boxer tried to make a point with Rice about the sacrifice families were making in the Iraq War. "The issue is, 'Who pays the price?' I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old. My grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay the price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families," Boxer said. A day later, Rice told the New York Times that she believed Boxer was implying she was less sensitive about the impact of war because Rice didn't have kids. ''I thought it was O.K. to be single. I thought it was O.K. to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn't have children.'' Fast-forward three years to the editorial board meeting and Boxer said her words were twisted. "I asked her how many people had died and she did not know the answer to that question. And since we had lost a lot of Californians, I was concerned. And I said, you and I don't have, we haven't paid a person price. I said, you and I, I said, myself, my grand kids are too young, my husband too old, and as far as I know you don't have anybody in the war. So I tried to use it to bring us together, but the right-wing press said that I questioned, that I turned on her because she wasn't married which was a little silly." So you weren't criticizing? Boxer was asked. "I was criticizing the fact that she didn't know how many people died in Iraq. Absolutely I was," Boxer said. But in a blog posting after the editorial board meeting, the Chronicle's Debra J. Saunders called Boxer out, pointing out that in the 2007 hearing, Boxer never actually asked Rice how many Americans had died in the war in Iraq. "I can see why Boxer would want to believe that she put her foot in her mouth -- and somehow it was Rice's fault, but the tale turns out to be a figment of Barbara Boxer's self-aggrandizing imagination," Saunders wrote. We reviewed the video ourselves, and Saunders is correct -- Boxer actually hadn't asked Rice any questions prior to her "personal price" comments. Nor did such a question arise at any point in the exchange between the two. In other words, Rice wasn't ignorant of the number of troop casualties; she was never asked. Indeed, it wasn't until after her "personal price" comments, when Boxer asked Rice about casualties, but it was for an estimate of future deaths from the surge in troops: Boxer: "Do you have have an estimate of the number of casualties we expect from this surge?" Rice: "No Senator, I don't think there's any way to give you such an estimate." Boxer: "Has the president, because he said, 'Expect more sacrifice.' He must know." Rice: "Senator, I don't think any of us have a number of expected casualties. I think that people understand that there is going to be violence for some time in Iraq and that there will be more casualties." And then Rice responded to Boxer's "personal price" comments. "And let me just say, I fully understand the sacrifice that the American people are making," Rice said. "And especially the sacrifice that our soldiers are making, men and women in uniform. I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never, and I can never, do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats…" Said Boxer: "Madam Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions, and the fact that this administration would move forward with this escalation with no clue as to the further price that we are going to pay militarily. We certainly know the numbers, billions of dollars that we can't spend here in this country. I find really appalling that not even enough time was taken to figure out what the casualties would be." "Senator, I think it would be highly unlikely for the military to tell the president we expect 'X' number of casualties because of this augmentation of the forces," Rice said. So there you have it. Boxer asked Rice for a projection on how many American troop casualties might be lost in the surge, and Rice essentially answered that that was unknowable. In the editorial board meeting, Boxer made a strong argument for her initial point that she was not criticizing Rice for being single and childless. As Boxer noted, and the record confirmed, Boxer began by noting that she, herself, did not have any immediate family serving in Iraq; and she then made the point that neither did Rice. But in defending herself on that issue, Boxer completely distorted what Rice said. She claimed Rice did not know how many American soldiers "had died" -- past tense. In fact, Rice said she could not project expected casualties from the surge. Boxer makes it sound like Rice either didn't know or didn't care about the number of soldiers who had died and that Boxer was nobly calling her out. In fact, she was asking Rice to speculate about casualties in the future. We find the senator's revisionist account to be far from the truth and disparaging of Rice. Pants on Fire!
| null |
Barbara Boxer
| null | null | null |
2010-09-03T18:00:24
|
2010-08-31
|
['None']
|
pomt-13395
|
You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Elections to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at tax returns.
|
false
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-talks-about-his-finances-first-presid/
|
Pressed on his refusal to follow decades of precedent and release his tax returns, Donald Trump at the first presidential debate repeated his assertion that the 92-page financial disclosure form he filed to the Federal Election Commission provides a better picture of his finances than the tax returns would. "You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Elections" to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at his returns, Trump said. (Trump has cited an ongoing audit by the Internal Revenue Service as a reason he isn’t releasing the returns. Hillary Clinton has released her tax returns from 2000 to 2015.) Trump has a point that his financial disclosure form is extensive. Its 92 pages are crammed with small print detailing assets, income sources and positions held. (We were able to track his investments in the stock market, for instance.) By comparison, Mitt Romney -- the 2012 Republican nominee who was a businessman with a complex set of holdings -- filed a 47-page disclosure form, not counting amendments and updates. We have previously looked at the difference between the financial disclosure form, which is required of presidential candidates under federal law, and tax returns, which have been released since 1980 by tradition rather than legal requirement. We found little evidence to support Trump’s argument that the financial disclosure allows observers to "learn more" than they would from a tax form. "It is true that Trump's businesses have received a lot of attention, but without the release of Trump's tax returns, we don't know a lot about his personal financial situation," Lawrence White, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, told us earlier this month. The two most obvious pieces of the puzzle missing without Trump’s tax returns are the effective rate of tax he pays on his income, and details about his charitable giving. Depending on what figures appear on his tax forms, Trump could face political criticism. Paying a low tax rate could be politically embarrassing. And Trump has faced questions about his past charitable giving. (For details, see the ongoing coverage by reporter David Farenthold of the Washington Post.) Tax returns also can give a clearer picture of the candidate’s liquid assets. "Trump can inflate his image of being rich on the financial disclosure forms, but you can get a better sense of how much he’s actually making from his tax returns," said former Romney aide Ryan Williams, who did not support Trump during the GOP primary and now says he’s officially undecided on the presidential race. Other nuggets can be gleaned from tax forms as well, such as what specific mix of taxes the candidate paid. "Romney’s tax return showed us a ton of valuable information about Romney, including the fact that most of his substantial income was ‘carried interest,’ " which is a type of tax-favored income available primarily to fund managers, said Allan Sloan, a business columnist for the Washington Post. Because of this, "we saw that the majority of his income was taxed at low rates." Trump wouldn’t necessarily qualify for the carried-interest tax, but as a someone in the real-estate business, he would have access to specialized tax breaks of his own, Sloan said. There is a "provision in tax law that allows people who spend at least half their working time as real-estate or development professionals to get depreciation deductions not available to other investors," he said. "That’s a huge loophole, and it’s gotten nothing like the attention that carried interest has gotten." The fact that Trump has not run for office before or served in government makes the scrutiny of his business dealings especially important for those who care about transparency. Yet the fact that he runs a privately held company makes it hard for outsiders to get a handle on his personal finances as long as no public tax filing is available, experts said. "Because Trump’s business dealings are varied and extensive, there is a lot to look at, but the quality of information is often poor, so reporters spend a lot of time looking at information insufficient to draw accurate conclusions," said Dennis Caplan, an associate professor of accounting at the University at Albany. Our ruling Trump said, "You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Elections" to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at his returns. An observer would find valuable information about Trump’s personal financial holdings from his extensive (and legally required) financial-disclosure form. However, experts consider that a red herring. Unlike all presidential nominees since 1980, Trump has not released his tax returns, which experts say would offer valuable details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid, and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his income-producing assets. Trump’s statement was, and is, inaccurate. We rate it False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/314c9496-1c70-41c2-ac55-0b36b9e7cc4d
| null |
Donald Trump
| null | null | null |
2016-09-26T22:25:06
|
2016-09-26
|
['None']
|
tron-02709
|
400 Christians saved from tsunami death in Indonesia?
|
unproven!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/meulaboh/
| null |
natural-disasters
| null | null | null |
400 Christians saved from tsunami death in Indonesia?
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-11951
|
The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions.
|
mostly true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/
|
In a rare move, the National Rifle Association issued a statement calling for regulation of the device that turned the Las Vegas shooter’s rifles more deadly, blaming Barack Obama’s administration for its approval. "Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." A bump or fire stock is a device that allows rifles to fire bullets as quickly as a machine gun. At least 12 of the Las Vegas shooter’s guns were outfitted with them. But did Obama approve their legality? Sort of, but approved is probably the wrong word. NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter pointed us to a June 2010 approval letter from ATF, an agency under executive purview, sent to Slide Fire, a bump stock manufacturer. Spelling out the legal definition of a firearm, ATF’s technology chief John Spencer determined it was not regulated by law. "The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed," Spencer wrote. "Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act." Bump stocks harness a weapon’s recoil to cause the user’s finger to squeeze the trigger repeatedly, but because they don’t alter the gun’s internal mechanisms, they were considered lawful. We found a similar 2012 letter addressed to Bump Fire, a competing manufacturer. But just as these bump stocks didn’t qualify for regulation, two similar devices did. The difference? The Akins Accelerator and the Autoglove were determined in 2007 and 2017, respectively, to have mechanical parts that enhanced the trigger mechanism, making them by definition machineguns. "Electrically-driven trigger devices are considered ‘machineguns’ because they are a ‘combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,’ " ATF’s letter to AutoGlove read. Automatic weapons sales have been restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and 1986 regulations made it much harder for civilians to get an automatic weapon like a machine gun. Obama administration’s role Experts in firearm policy were divided when we asked about the fairness of the NRA’s characterization. Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in guns, said it was appropriate to characterize the move as an approval of its sale under the Obama administration. "Not because they liked it, but because the law did not permit them to prohibit it," Winkler said. Other legal experts stressed that it wasn’t an approval, but rather a determination that current law didn’t allow for its regulation. "The statement implies Obama or (U.S. Attorney General Eric) Holder was somehow involved, and that it was an issue that wouldn’t have been approved in any other administration, and that’s technically incorrect," said Rick Vasquez, a former Firearms Technology Branch official who first signed off on the recommendation the ATF could not regulate the Slide Fire. "We never had any political people come down to our office saying we must or must not approve (the Slide Fire)," Vasquez said. Obama issued a slew of executive orders promoting stricter gun control, which the Trump administration has been rolling back, including a measure that previously prevented people with mental illness from buying guns. "I believe (the NRA) were stating that just to point out that this wasn’t some rogue decision made during a Republican administration, which would be more friendly to gun owners, and therefore that when they re-evaluate it, they’re going to have to take a really close look at the law," said John Pierce, a lawyer and advocate for gun rights. In order to re-evaluate the bump stock, Vasquez said the ATF would have to change the way it interpreted the National Firearms Act or issue new legislation that would allow the device to be regulated. Our ruling The NRA said, "The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions." We indeed found two occasions in which ATF, a bureau within the executive branch, decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration. These decisions allowed two companies to sell bump stocks. It’s important to note this was not a statement of Obama’s preferred policy, which called for more regulation of guns, but was what the agency determined it had to do under the language of current law. We rate this statement Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
National Rifle Association
| null | null | null |
2017-10-06T17:10:14
|
2017-10-05
|
['Barack_Obama']
|
pomt-11749
|
The Jerusalem Embassy Act "passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago."
|
mostly true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-correct-about-history-jerusalem-embas/
|
President Donald Trump on Dec. 6 unveiled a new policy regarding Israel’s capital city, stating that "it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." In his remarks, Trump said he would be designating Jerusalem as the officially recognized capital of Israel and "directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy" from its current location in Tel Aviv. In his remarks, Trump noted that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 had "passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago." The 1995 law Trump cited mandated that the embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by 1999. However, Palestinians also consider Jerusalem to be their capital, and the city has long been considered one of the stickiest points of contention for final-status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Most other nations that have diplomatic relations with Israel have continued to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv. For these reasons, past U.S. presidents from both parties have regularly signed waivers to suspend the move, amid fears it would destabilize peace talks. So is Trump correct in describing the legislative history of the law? We took a closer look. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Dec. 6, 2017. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) The Jerusalem Embassy Act "passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority" For this portion of his statement, Trump is on solid ground. In the Senate, the bill passed on Oct. 24, 1995, by a 93-5 margin. Later that day, the House followed suit, passing it by a 374-37 margin. The law was "reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago." This part requires more explanation. The non-binding resolution from earlier this year involved "commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem" during the Six Day War in 1967. One of its provisions specifically referenced the 1995 law. A portion of the 2017 resolution "reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45) as United States law, and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions." On June 5, 2017, the measure passed the Senate by a 90-0 margin. Here’s the caveat: The same resolution that passed the Senate 90-0 also included this provision: The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution." Did Trump do or say anything contrary to that provision? There’s some disagreement on that. Trump in his remarks offered some language reaffirming the substance of this provision. Specifically, he said, "In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved." To Michael Koplow, policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, this "made clear that his decision doesn’t prejudice final status issues, so it seems to still be consistent with the Senate resolution." Others, however, contend that an embassy move may imperil future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Jerusalem. "Not only is this a reasonable caveat, it is a critical one," said Samer S. Shehata, a professor and acting director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma. "If you've been following the British, French and many of the other reactions to President Trump's move, almost all note this critical point." In their public remarks, both French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May made a point of reaffirming the need for future final-status negotiations about Jerusalem, which suggests that they are worried about the impact of Trump’s move in that context. Macron, in a phone call to Trump before the announcement, "expressed his concern with the possibility that the United States might unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as capital of the state of Israel," the French government said. "Mr. Macron reaffirmed that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved through peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and particularly those relating to the establishment of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with Jerusalem as their capital." May said that she’s "intending to speak to President Trump about this matter. The status of Jerusalem should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Jerusalem should ultimately form a shared capital between the Israeli and Palestinian states." Our ruling Trump said that the Jerusalem Embassy Act "passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago." He’s right about both pieces of legislation and the margins by which they passed. However, it’s worth noting that the 2017 Senate resolution also reaffirmed that "the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution" -- a position that Trump rhetorically backed in his speech, but that some believe could be endangered by his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy. We rate the statement Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Donald Trump
| null | null | null |
2017-12-06T16:40:34
|
2017-12-06
|
['United_States_Congress']
|
pomt-11194
|
Religion in America isn’t receding. It’s just the opposite. Faith is gaining new life across America every day.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/16/mike-pence/mike-pence-right-religion-gaining-new-life-us/
|
Speaking at a commencement ceremony at Hillsdale College in Michigan, Vice President Mike Pence told the graduates that religion in the United States is going strong. "The percentage of Americans who live out their religion on a weekly basis — praying, going to church, reading and believing in the Bible — has remained remarkably consistent over the decades, even as the population of the United States has grown by leaps and bounds," Pence said during his May 12 speech. "I mean, think about it, today, relative to the population, four times as many Americans go to church on a regular basis than at the time of our nation’s founding. Religion in America isn’t receding. It’s just the opposite. Faith is gaining new life across America every day." We wondered whether Pence is right that "religion in America isn’t receding. It’s just the opposite. Faith is gaining new life across America every day." Based on data and scholarly opinion, Pence overlooked some notable nuances in the long-running data on religion in the United States. "Since 1990, weakly religious people have increasingly chosen between a stronger religious identity or none at all," said Michael Hout, a New York University sociologist. "The middle spot of being blandly religious and occasionally attending became harder and harder to maintain." Coffee vs. espresso Religious practice on the more intense end of the spectrum has held its own in recent years, according to data. However, Pence ignored that the share of Americans without a religious affiliation has risen, and the share of Americans with lower levels of described religiousness has steadily declined. Landon Schnabel of Indiana University, who co-authored a 2017 study on religious data with Sean Bock of Harvard University, said that "Pence's statement isn't totally wrong, but it is a misinterpretation." Schnabel’s issue is that Pence focused only on one trend line, rather than the entire landscape. The metaphor Schnabel uses to describe the changing shape of religion is "espresso versus coffee. There's less of it, and it's stronger. And if some people didn't like how coffee tastes, they're really not going to like espresso." See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com What the numbers say To illustrate some of the longer-term trends, we examined data from the General Social Survey, produced by the University of Chicago. In this first chart, we see the breakdown of Americans by whether they identify as Protestant, Catholic, another religion, or no religion. The most striking increase is in those who do not have a religious affiliation. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The portion of the population without a religious affiliation has quadrupled over a 40-year span from 5 percent to more than 20 percent. Additional data illustrates another question: the strength of religious affiliation. This chart looks at that data over the period: See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com The percentage of respondents saying they had a "strong" religious affiliation has been more or less constant for 40 years, bouncing between 35 percent and 40 percent of the population. This slice of the data supports Pence’s view. But other portions of the data run counter to Pence’s stated trend. Notably, the segment of the population that reported either a "somewhat strong" or "not very strong" religious affiliation has declined. This group peaked at about 55 percent in the late 1970s but has since fallen to a little more than 40 percent. (This category doesn’t include those with no religious affiliation.) Finally, we looked at another measure of religious strength — the frequency of attendance at religious services. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com This data mirrors that for strength of religious affiliation. The percentage attending services between zero and two times a year has risen from 29 percent to 46 percent since the early 1970s, while the percentage attending services on a roughly weekly basis fell from 35 percent to 22 percent. Those attending more than weekly — the most intense group — has remained notably stable. What other research shows We also looked at findings from the Pew Research Center, which conducted comprehensive Religious Landscape Surveys in 2007 and 2014. Pence could find support there, too — as well as findings that undermine his position. "Among the roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults who claim a religion, there was no discernible drop in most measures of religious commitment" between 2007 and 2014, said Gregory A. Smith, Pew’s associate director for research. "Indeed, by some conventional measures, religiously affiliated Americans were, on average, even more devout than they were a few years prior." By contrast, Pew found "small but statistically significant declines in the share of Americans who say they believe in God (from 92 percent to 89 percent), in the share of Americans who say they pray every day (from 58 percent to 55 percent), in the share who say religion is very important in their lives (from 56 percent to 53 percent), and in the share who say they attend religious services at least monthly (from 54 percent to 50 percent)." One reason for the shift may be generational. "Older generations of American adults who were overwhelmingly Christian by affiliation and comparatively devout in belief and behavior are gradually passing away," according to the Pew report. That said, Pew’s data shows indications that Americans are becoming more spiritual outside of the context of organized religion. "About six in 10 adults now say they regularly feel a deep sense of ‘spiritual peace and well-being,’ up seven percentage points since 2007," the study found. How accurate was Pence? Pence’s office didn’t respond to an inquiry for this article, but his office told the Washington Post Fact Checker that they had relied on the Schnabel-Bock study, as well as an article that addressed the Schnabel-Bock study in the Federalist, a conservative publication. That article, headlined, "New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger," was written by Glenn T. Stanton, the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family. When we reached out to Stanton, he said he was unaware that Pence had picked up on his article, or that it had inspired fact-checking. Stanton acknowledged that "the mainline denominations are hemorrhaging members. This goes a long way in the fact that some forms of faith are indeed shrinking in America. Those denominations that are compromising on tradition and orthodoxy are shrinking at alarming rates. No question. As Schnabel and Bock explain, it is the very serious and rigorous portions of Christianity that are holding solid." Overall, Stanton said he felt Pence was giving a reasonable, boiled-down version of the Schnabel-Bock research. Our ruling Pence said, "Religion in America isn’t receding. It’s just the opposite. Faith is gaining new life across America every day." The data on religion in the United States has been fairly consistent over the past four decades. The share of the population that is more strongly religious is holding steady, providing Pence some support. However, the share who consider themselves only modestly religious is in a long-term decline, and the share without any religious affiliation is growing. We rate the statement Half True. See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Mike Pence
| null | null | null |
2018-05-16T11:05:09
|
2018-05-12
|
['United_States']
|
pomt-14964
|
We lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns.
|
mostly true
|
/texas/statements/2015/oct/21/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-us-loses-90-people-day-guns/
|
Rallying supporters in San Antonio, Hillary Clinton said Oct. 15, 2015, that she’s running for president in part "to protect our families and communities from the plague of gun violence." Clinton, who was introduced and endorsed by Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor serving as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, went on: "Look, you know, we lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns." Is that so? Earlier in the week, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state aired the same per-day count at the Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN. On her campaign website, Clinton says she favors more pre-purchase background checks, "cracking down on illegal gun traffickers, holding dealers and manufacturers accountable when they endanger Americans, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers." A subsequent check of Clinton’s 90 gun deaths by FactCheck.org, based at the University of Pennsylvania, found that while Clinton’s figure held up for 2013, the last year of available data, it is worth noting that only one-third of firearm deaths consisted of homicides; most other gun deaths counted as suicides. At least once, Clinton has clarified her figure by mentioning suicides; according to an Oct. 7, 2015, post on her campaign website, she said in Muscatine, Iowa: "We lose between 88 and 92 Americans a day from gun violence — homicides, suicides and accidents — and we have to act." Let’s go to the numbers. Federal statistics According to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 33,636 U.S. firearm deaths were recorded in 2013 — or 92 a day, on average. Some 63 percent of that year’s firearm deaths, or 21,175, were suicides, with 11,208 considered homicides and the rest classified as unintentional discharges (505), legal intervention/war (467) and undetermined (281). We confirmed those figures and checked the numbers for the four previous years (2009-12), finding a five-year average of 89 firearm deaths a day. In that period, the low was 86 firearm deaths a day in 2009 while the 2012 and 2013 averages tied at 92. For each year too, suicides by firearm accounted for far more deaths than homicides by firearm. Government statistician Next, we reached out to the CDC. By email, statistician Ken Kochanek said the 2013 figures remain the latest available. To our request, Kochanek drew on the agency’s statistics to create a document showing that the rate of U.S. deaths by firearm in 2013, roughly 10.6 per 100,000 residents, exceeded the rate of 10.4 per 100,0000 residents for 1999 through 2013. The 15-year high was set in 2012 — 10.7 per 100,000 residents. The 15-year low was set in 2004 — 10.1 firearm deaths per 100,000 residents. Asked to focus on homicides by firearm, Kochanek emailed a document indicating the 2013 rate of 3.5 homicides by firearm per 100,000 residents was less than the 3.9 homicides by firearm per 100,000 residents over the 15-year period. Over those years, the highest rate, of 4.3 homicides by firearm per 100,000 residents, was set in 2006 and the lowest rate, 3.6 homicides by firearm per 100,000 residents was set in two years, 2010 and 2011. Our ruling Clinton said: "We lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns." That’s about right. But it leaves unsaid that the bulk of those deaths are suicides, not homicides. Also, in 2013, the latest year of available data, the rate of homicides by firearm was lower than the rate for 1999 through 2013. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
| null |
Hillary Clinton
| null | null | null |
2015-10-21T13:04:16
|
2015-10-15
|
['None']
|
goop-01103
|
Ben Affleck “Too Big” For Batman Suit?
|
1
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-too-big-batman-suit-fat/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Ben Affleck “Too Big” For Batman Suit?
|
8:39 pm, April 27, 2018
| null |
['Ben_Affleck']
|
pomt-07427
|
Foreign companies in the United States have a significantly higher unionization rate than other companies overall.
|
true
|
/ohio/statements/2011/apr/25/sherrod-brown/sen-sherrod-brown-says-unionization-rates-are-high/
|
The stated mission of the U.S. Commerce Department is to help make American businesses more innovative at home and more competitive abroad. That mission made manufacturing and exports two of the top concerns of Sen. Sherrod Brown when his Senate Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing on the department's proposed budget for fiscal 2012. The Ohio Democrat called for a national manufacturing strategy, which is the goal of a bipartisan bill he introduced this month with Sen. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican. But Brown also asked Commerce Secretary Gary Locke what the department is doing to attract foreign investment to the United States. Foreign companies "tend to invest in manufacturing" and to spend money on research and development, Brown said. "Foreign companies in the United States have a significantly higher unionization rate than other companies overall," he added. That caught PolitiFact Ohio by surprise. We knew that union membership has declined significantly since the 1980s, but we also knew that the United Auto Workers has struggled to organize workers at foreign-owned factories, mainly in the South. None of the factories operated by foreign automakers in the region has union workers. Brown said he understood the surprise, given our auto-centric perspective, but assured us he could back up his statement. He went a step further and provided specific numbers in a statement from his office: 12.4 percent of workers at foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries are union employees while fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. are union employees. In support, Brown's staff referred us to the Organization for International Investment, a Washington-based business association representing U.S. operations of global companies. Its statistics, we confirmed, are drawn from publicly available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Their figures showed: U.S. subsidiaries of global companies employ 5.6 million Americans (including 231,600 in Ohio, the nation's seventh-highest total). Collective bargaining agreements cover 12.4 percent of those U.S. workers. The union membership rate of all U.S. workers in 2010 was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier. (In 1983, the first year for which comparable figures are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent.) The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was "substantially higher" than the rate for private sector workers, which was 6.9 percent. In sum, U.S. employees of foreign-owned companies have a higher rate of union membership than the U.S. workforce as a whole, and a much higher rate than workers in the private sector. Brown's statement rates as True.
| null |
Sherrod Brown
| null | null | null |
2011-04-25T06:00:00
|
2011-04-14
|
['United_States']
|
snes-04448
|
Fire and smoke billowing from the vicinity of the Eiffel Tower were evidence of a Bastille Day terrorist attack in Paris.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eiffel-tower-terrorist-attack/
| null |
Politics
| null |
David Emery
| null |
Eiffel Tower Set Ablaze by Terrorists
|
14 July 2016
| null |
['Paris', 'Eiffel_Tower', 'Bastille_Day']
|
pomt-13097
|
Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens "spent another $600,000 on image consultants" to rebrand his charity, The Mission Continues.
|
half-true
|
/missouri/statements/2016/nov/06/chris-koster/chris-koster-skews-meaning-image-consultants-hired/
|
In a recent ad, Missouri Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster criticized how Eric Greitens’ charity, The Mission Continues, has been spending money. "Eric Greitens used money from his veterans charity to pay himself over $700,000 in salary and bonuses," said the ad, as part of a broad attack on how Greitens’ nonprofit, intended to help veterans re-enter civilian life, has been run. In the ad, a voice says, "He spent another $600,000 on image consultants," while viewers see a makeup artist applying makeup to Greitens’ face. We wanted to know if this claim about The Mission Continues spending money on image consultants checked out, so we decided to look into it. The Mission Continues Greitens’ nonprofit benefits recently discharged veterans by giving them volunteer opportunities in their own communities where they can learn new skills by "improving community education resources, eliminating food deserts, mentoring at-risk youth and more." The Mission Continues has operations in over 20 states and Washington D.C. called "service platoons" that collaborate with local groups to plan service activities to benefit specific communities. The organization is a Better Business Bureau accredited 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Rebranding In 2013, the organization decided to rebrand in an attempt to expand its operations. The Mission Continues hired St. Louis-based public relations firm FleishmanHillard Inc. as an independent contractor. FleishmanHillard is one of the most respected PR firms in the country, with big-name clients like Chevrolet, EA Sports, Olay and Procter & Gamble. The Mission Continues paid FleishmanHillard $619,599 for its services in 2014 and 2015, according to public filings required by the charity. This $619,599 made up approximately 5.2 percent of the organization’s total expenses for each fiscal year. News of the rebranding effort ran as a story in PR Week, an international trade publication for the public relations field. What they paid for Greitens’ charity launched its new image to the public "at a food bank event that brought veterans together with President (Barack) Obama, as they served meals to dozens of underprivileged families," according to the PR Week article. The crown jewel of the nonprofit’s new image was a new logo. It features a shield-shaped patch with a two-sided bird: an eagle to represent patriotism, and a dove to illustrate a commitment to service, as explained by a video on the group’s website. The logo won a Silver Anvil Award of Excellence from the Public Relations Society of America, a top trade organization for the industry. The campaign also introduced a new website and introduced the branding into designs for community service projects. Clearly, FleishmanHillard’s campaign was designed to rebrand The Mission Continues as a charity, not Greitens himself. This rebranding was covered by several major news outlets, including ABCNews.com and Bloomberg News. Charities have to market themselves so the people they want to help know about their services, said Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of Charity Watch. "It’s a legitimate expense," Borochoff said. "They can’t do it in the dark." A representative from the Greitens campaign said the ad was a blatant misrepresentation of the reality of the expense. Our ruling In a TV ad, Koster said Greitens’ charity The Mission Continues spent $600,000 on image consultants. This amount was well-supported by non-profit Form 990s, which listed $619,599 in payment to PR firm FleishmanHillard. The ad was misleading, however, when it suggested that the image consultants were used to craft Greiten’s personal image, instead of The Mission Continues. Furthermore, it implied that a charity spending money on branding is wasteful. An expert who monitors charities said it was a legitimate expense. We rate Koster’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2c7b5353-dd89-4d1d-8e7c-b5a3c44e44ad
| null |
Chris Koster
| null | null | null |
2016-11-06T00:32:29
|
2016-09-13
|
['None']
|
afck-00031
|
“We note that pneumonia, malaria and cancer continue to be the leading causes of registered deaths.”
|
unproven
|
https://africacheck.org/reports/hit-or-miss-5-claims-by-kenyan-governors-fact-checked/
| null | null | null | null | null |
Hit or miss? 5 claims by Kenyan governors fact-checked
|
2018-07-04 01:06
| null |
['None']
|
tron-02399
|
The origins of “Kilroy Was Here”
|
unproven!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/kilroy/
| null |
military
| null | null | null |
The origins of “Kilroy Was Here”
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
pose-00018
|
The Research & Development tax credit and the renewable energy production tax credit are intended to spur innovation in the private sector, but the tax credits have expiration dates under current law. Obama would make them permanent.
|
promise kept
|
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/20/make-permanent-the-research-development-tax-cred/
| null |
obameter
|
Barack Obama
| null | null |
Make permanent the Research & Development tax credit
|
2010-01-07T13:26:45
| null |
['Barack_Obama']
|
vogo-00068
|
The Most Notorious Fact Checks of 2013
|
none
|
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/the-most-notorious-fact-checks-of-2013/
| null | null | null | null | null |
The Most Notorious Fact Checks of 2013
|
December 23, 2013
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-04014
|
A majority of Americans agree with a ban on assault weapons. "And by the way, so did Ronald Reagan."
|
true
|
/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/
|
About a month after a mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 20 schoolchildren and six adults dead, President Barack Obama rolled out a package of gun-control proposals during a speech with Vice President Joe Biden. The package included initiatives such as an assault-weapons ban that requires congressional approval, along with 23 executive actions that the president can implement on his own. The price tag for the package is estimated at $500 million. In presenting the package, specifically the portion dealing with the assault-weapons ban, Obama made a point of conjuring past President Ronald Reagan’s stance on the same issue. "Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater," Obama said during the speech. "A majority of Americans agree with us on this. And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons." Evoking past presidents is a frequent practice by politicians. Unfortunately, sometimes the context and the content of the recollections are incorrect. PolitiFact Georgia decided to check the accuracy of Obama’s statement, as well as whether most Americans support a ban on military-style assault weapons. Obama pitched his gun plan at the White House surrounded by school-age children who had written letters to the president about the Newtown school shooting. In the audience were the parents of one of the students killed at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, along with a survivor of the 2007 shooting massacre at Virginia Tech that left more than 30 people dead and an additional 15 wounded. Against this emotional backdrop Obama’s plans drew immediate and intense reaction from supporting groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, as well as opponents such as the National Rifle Association. Obama’s push for an assault-weapon’s ban hearkens to the original ban passed in 1994 that expired in 2004. At the time of that ban’s passage, Reagan -- who took office in 1981-- supported it. In a joint letter to The Boston Globe with Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, the former presidents wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." Eight years before this letter in the newspaper supporting the assault-weapons ban, Reagan, who was then president, signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was supported by gun rights advocates. In addition to providing protections for gun owners, the act also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed. These items provide a framework for Reagan’s actions around an assassination attempt on his life months after taking office in 1981. The shooting left Reagan wounded and presidential press secretary James Brady paralyzed. The shooting provided the impetus for the Brady Bill, introduced in 1987, that required background checks for gun purchasers and a waiting period before a buyer could take possession of a gun. In a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled "Why I’m For the Brady Bill," Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics," Reagan said in the op-ed. "… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land." "Reagan supported the Brady Bill. That was after he had left office, but he did support it," said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. "His views are a little complicated because he also signed legislation easing the (1968) Gun Control Act, so you can take Reagan either way." As for the president’s assessment that "a majority of Americans agree" with the assault-weapons ban, we went to the polls for answers. A Washington Post/ABC News poll involving guns, politics and governing priorities was conducted by telephone Jan. 10-13. The poll included a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including land-line and cellphone-only respondents. The poll’s results have a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. The poll includes three pertinent questions about weapons bans: -- Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on semi-automatic handguns, which automatically reload every time the trigger is pulled? Fifty-one percent of all adults said yes; 46 percent said no. Fifty percent of registered voters said yes; 47 percent said no. -- Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets? Sixty-five percent of all adults said they supported a ban; 32 percent opposed. Those same numbers applied to registered voters. -- Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons? Fifty-eight percent of all adults supported a ban; 39 percent opposed. Fifty-nine percent of registered voters supported a ban; 38 percent opposed. So how does Obama’s statement rate? During his speech laying out a package of gun-control proposals, the president evoked Reagan’s support of an assault-weapons ban. History shows that Reagan’s track record on guns is a winding road. He was a strong gun rights supporter who signed legislation easing an earlier gun law. But he also supported legislation for background checks and a waiting period for potential gun owners. He did support an assault-weapons ban and even joined two other former presidents in a letter to a major newspaper urging congressional approval of a ban. Not only did Reagan support the ban, but so do most Americans, Obama said. Information from a Washington Post/ABC News poll supports the president’s statement. On these two issues, we gave Obama a True rating. Staff writer Karishma Mehrotra contributed to this article. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c2035a6a-7caf-4aca-bdd2-cc83f268d2c4
| null |
Barack Obama
| null | null | null |
2013-02-05T06:00:00
|
2013-01-16
|
['United_States', 'Ronald_Reagan']
|
pomt-01797
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit compared the health care law to buying a pepperoni and ham pizza from Domino's or Pizza Hut.
|
mostly true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz/dnc-chair-says-fourth-circuit-court-used-pizza-ana/
|
What does cheap pizza have to do with health care — other than if you eat too much, you might need to see a doctor? Apparently, it’s the perfect metaphor to explain why a key provision in the Affordable Care Act is legal. That’s what we heard from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. During a July 22 Las Vegas TV appearance, the Florida congresswoman discussed two new dueling court decisions on the health care law. She said the court that sided with President Barack Obama’s administration made a compelling, albeit cheesy, argument. "The language in the Fourth Circuit actually compared if you buy a pizza from Pizza Hut to a pizza from Dominoes," Wasserman Schultz said. "And if you ask for ham and pepperoni on your Pizza Hut pizza, but then I actually go get your pizza from Domino’s, it’s implied if I bring back a pepperoni and ham pizza, then that’s what you asked for." Hold the sauce! Is this really what the court said, or did Wasserman Schultz slice the ruling? Let’s take a look. The challenge On Tuesday, two appeals courts issued rulings on whether the federal government had the authority to provide subsidies for people who purchased coverage on the federal government’s health insurance marketplace. Why is that an issue? The government directed each state to set up a marketplace where insurance providers could sell policies to uninsured residents. But if a state decided not to take this step, the federal government said it would step in and do it for them. As it stands, only 14 states are operating their own exchanges. Many of the people purchasing coverage in these marketplaces are low-income residents who are unable to afford policies without assistance. To help pay for coverage, the federal government provides subsidies in the form of tax credits to buy insurance. But, as written, the law says that the subsidies apply to insurance bought on exchanges "established by the State." In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that clause means people in the 36 states without state-based exchanges cannot buy discounted policies. If upheld, millions of people would have to pay more for their policies or lose their coverage. Just hours later, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its own decision in a similar case. In a 3-0 ruling, the court said that the way the law is written is at worst ambiguous, and that the Obama administration interpreted the law in a "permissible" fashion. That means everyone who’s bought the discounted policies would still get the credits. Pizza! Pizza! In a concurring opinion, Judge Andre Davis said he supported the Fourth Circuit Court’s decision to side with the Obama administration. But he didn’t see the law as that ambiguous. Quoting from the law, Davis wrote that the Department of Health and Human Services was instructed to "establish and operate such exchange within the State and … take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements." Giving Health and Human services the power to operate "such" an exchange also gives them the ability to provide tax credits, Davis wrote. Davis then served up this pizza-ordering scenario, presumably experienced by every college student at one time or another: "If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange." Got it? More importantly, did Wasserman Schultz get it? Yes…ish. First, and this is critical, Wasserman Schultz implied this was the opinion for the Fourth Circuit Court. It’s not. This is a concurring opinion from one judge who agreed with the ultimate decision, but added his own twist that wasn’t endorsed by the entire panel. That’s key. The second issue is pizza semantics. Wasserman Schultz said that if you order a pizza from Pizza Hut, it doesn’t matter where it comes from, as long as you get the toppings — ham and pepperoni — on the pizza you ordered. That’s not exactly what Judge Davis said. In Davis’ scenario, the person said in advance they wanted Pizza Hut, but they would be okay with Domino’s. Without that distinction, the pizza could also come from Papa John’s. Davis did not say Papa John’s would be okay, and we also have to note that Papa John’s does not offer ham as a topping (though a spokesman said patrons could order its foreign brother, Canadian bacon). Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said the Fourth Circuit Court in its ruling wrote, "If you ask for ham and pepperoni on your Pizza Hut pizza but then I actually go get your pizza from Domino’s, it’s implied if I bring back a pepperoni and ham pizza then that’s what you asked for." This wasn’t the ruling of the entire three-member court, just one judge’s concurring opinion. And she did miss the distinction that the person ordering the pizza said in advance they wanted Pizza Hut, but would be "fine with a pizza from Domino’s." We rate the statement Mostly True.
| null |
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
| null | null | null |
2014-07-24T10:49:54
|
2014-07-22
|
['Pizza_Hut']
|
pomt-13969
|
On average, each U.S. military working dog saves the lives of between 150 and 200 servicemen and women over the span of his career.
|
false
|
/virginia/statements/2016/jun/14/rob-wittman/rob-wittman-erroneously-says-each-military-dog-sav/
|
We love a heroic dog story, and this one caught our eye: "On average, each U.S. military working dog saves the lives of between 150 and 200 servicemen and women over the span of his career," U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman, R-1st, wrote in a recent Facebook post. Below the comment was a picture of Wittman petting Valerie, a service dog, at a U.S. Navy contractors’ expo held May 16-18, a few miles from Capitol Hill. Wittman noted that he had backed legislation to help reunite military dogs, when they retire, with their handlers. "Brave and independent pups like Valerie deserve the hero’s treatment," he wrote. No doubt, military dogs deserve their due. But we wondered whether Wittman gave the canines too much credit in claiming each one averages saving 150 to 200 lives during their careers. Farahn Morgan, the congressman’s press secretary, told us Wittman got the figure from the American Humane Association. She provided a news release the organization sent in June 2015. It praised Congress for passing legislation that allows the military to fly service dogs back to the U.S. after retirement to be reunited with their handlers or adopted. Transportation previously had been handled by private fundraising organizations, including the humane association. "The nation’s military working dogs, each of whom saves the lives of between 150-200 servicemen and women in the course of their career, are one step closer to being guaranteed treatment as the heroes they are," the humane association news release began. We asked the humane association for its source of the statistic. Spokesman Mark Stubis told us the association got the numbers a few years ago from "a number of organizations that were working with military dog adoptions." He referred us to several news reports that also cited statistics but offered no specific source. They included: The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 25, 2012: "It is hard to quantify how many soldiers have been saved by canine detection skills, but estimates range from 150 to 1,800 lives per dog." People, March 15, 2010: "‘If one dog finds one explosive, he’s saved at least 150 lives,’ says Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Ekali Brooks." CNN, Jan. 6, 2012: "’These dogs are more soldiers than they are equipment,’ said Debbie Kandoll, founder of Military Working Dog Adoptions. Kandoll, who helps civilians adopt military working dogs, estimates that the average war dog saves 150 soldier lives during its service.’" CNN said that, according to the Department of Defense, there are 2,700 military dogs serving worldwide. The Journal offered the same number, although no source was cited. So, Let's do some math: If 2,700 military dogs saved between 150 and 200 lives each, how many service member's lives would be saved? The answer: Between 405,000 and 540,000. That’s roughly the same or more than the number of U.S. service members who were killed during World War II - pegged at 405,399 by the U.S. government. We asked the Department of Defense if it could verify that each military dog saves between 150 and 200 lives. Spokesman Eric Pahon repudiated the claim. "The DoD has not conducted a study and we feel that the number is likely greatly inflated over what the actual numbers might be," Pahon wrote in an email. Pahon said there are about 1,740 military working dogs, not including those belonging to special forces such as Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, or those assigned to security details such as the Pentagon police. He declined to release the total number, citing security concerns. Pahon said the average career of a military dog lasts eight to nine years. Many of them are trained as bomb sniffers. "Most of our explosive-detecting (dogs) have never found anything except explosive training aids because they have never encountered a live explosive device," he said. "Those that have found devices were actually conducting deployed operations at the time in (Afghanistan or Iraq). For those that are found, the typical device in a roadway or building would kill far fewer people than 150 people. As such, the (dog) would need to find several devices or bomb-making components to reach the 150-200 number and that would only apply to very few dogs." Pahon said that while the contributions of the bomb sniffers are not quantifiable, "they are an invaluable asset for freedom of movement of our ground patrols." He added that many of the dogs aren’t bomb sniffers but are trained to detect drugs or walk patrols. "These are critical duties that are not directly life-saving, but contribute to overall mission success and safety," Pahon wrote. Our ruling Wittman said, "On average, each U.S. military working dog saves the lives of between 150 and 200 servicemen and women over the span of his career." This is a myth that’s been spread for years, often by organizations promoting the adoption of retired military dogs. Wittman says he picked up the figure from the American Humane Association’s website. Nobody seems to know the original source of the numbers. Wittman and others who state the number unequivocally fail in their burden of proof. The Department of Defense says it never has quantified the number of lives saved by military dogs and that the 150- to 200-per-dog number "is likely greatly inflated." Think about it: If the number was correct, it would mean the dogs are saving the lives of more than 400,000 service members every eight to nine years. While recognizing military dogs for the important service they perform, we rate Wittman’s statement False.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/32d1c048-0b9b-4f10-9fee-3d1fba355582
| null |
Rob Wittman
| null | null | null |
2016-06-14T11:23:14
|
2016-06-18
|
['United_States']
|
pomt-12726
|
300,000 pounds of rat meat sold as chicken wings across America.
|
pants on fire!
|
/punditfact/statements/2017/mar/06/blog-posting/rats-rumors-tons-rodent-meat-passed-chicken-wings-/
|
A fake news story that said some 150 tons of rat meat may be sold as chicken wings to deal with high demand during the Super Bowl is actually a trap for unwary readers. A Feb. 15, 2016, post on UrbanImageMagazine.com declared that "300,000 pounds of rat meat sold as chicken wings across America." Facebook flagged the story as potentially being made up as part of the social media company’s crackdown on fake news. Facebook said this particular post had been shared more than 178,000 times in the past year. We found other instances of the same story elsewhere, too. The fake story said the Food and Drug Administration was issuing a warning about rodents being sold as chicken wings after several shipping containers of rat meat were impounded coming into San Francisco from China. An official-sounding statement from the FDA warned that the rat meat coming into the United States was filtering into the food system to deal with a shortage of poultry leading up to the National Football League’s main event. The story warned that Americans should be vigilant about what they are eating, because it’s supposedly hard to tell the difference between rat meat and chicken wings. We’d think the substitution would be easy to spot, but apparently rat is most often caught masquerading as lamb. And while some east Asian cultures have been known to consume rat meat or pass it off as something else, we could find no reports of rodent flesh being impounded in San Francisco by the ton in 2016, 2017 or any other year. The UrbanImageMagazine.com post cited as its source a Feb. 6, 2016, story from WorldNewsDailyReport.com, a known peddler of fake articles. The site admits as much in its disclaimer, referring to "the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content." The original story posted a day before the Super Bowl was played on Feb. 7, 2016, as a joke "warning" people of counterfeit chicken wings. We contacted UrbanImageMagazine.com to ask if they knew the story was fake, but didn’t hear back. But we smell a rat, all right, and it’s the content of this story. We rate it Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Bloggers
| null | null | null |
2017-03-06T11:21:50
|
2016-02-15
|
['United_States']
|
pomt-11208
|
Each year ICE detains someone, it costs taxpayers over $50,000. For comparison, by the way, that's four times the amount the federal government spends on each child in our public schools.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/11/patty-murray/does-detaining-immigrant-year-cost-4-times-federal/
|
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s spending practices, saying the agency is "unnecessarily detaining people," such as pregnant women. Murray offered a comparison of federal dollars that go toward the detention of immigrants with money spent to educate children in public schools. "As you know, detention is really expensive," Murray said during a May 8 Senate subcommittee hearing for the department’s 2019 budget request. "Each year (U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement) detains someone, it costs taxpayers over $50,000. For comparison, by the way, that's four times the amount the federal government spends on each child in our public schools." We found that Murray’s math contains some truth, but needs clarification and additional information. Based on the current rate to house an adult detainee per day, it would cost slightly over $50,000 to keep a person detained for a year. That’s roughly four times the approximate $13,000 public schools received per student. However, a year's detention is not realistic, as most detainees are held an average of 40 days. Also, most school funding is at the state and local levels, not federal. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Immigrant detention costs Murray’s office said her $50,000 estimate was an annualized calculation of the current daily bed rate for immigrant detention, $137.19, multiplied by 365 days (a total of $50,074.35). The bed rate is the national average cost to house one adult detainee for one day. In recent years, the average bed rate has been around $130. That $50,000 is likely a conservative estimate of the detention costs. From fiscal years 2014 through 2017, ICE underestimated the actual bed rate, said an April 2018 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, flagging "inconsistencies and errors" in ICE’s calculations for immigration detention costs. Since ICE had not received an appropriation for fiscal year 2018 during the time of GAO’s review, GAO did not assess 2018’s budget projection compared to actual costs. Still, GAO said ICE’s 2018 request included a multiplication error that resulted in ICE requesting less funds for adult beds. It would cost more than $50,000 to keep one immigrant in detention for a year based on the current bed rate. But so far in fiscal year 2018, the average length of detention has been 40.5 days, according to ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett. The average length of detention from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 was about 33 days, according to the ICE budget overview for fiscal year 2018. The average length of detention for immigrants apprehended at the southwest border was about 27.4 days in fiscal year 2017, and increased to 51.5 days for immigrants apprehended in the interior of the country, the budget overview said. It also said that "due to a revived focus on ensuring public safety by increasing interior enforcement" detention of criminal immigrants "may be significantly higher when compared to prior years." Even so, there are reports of some immigrants being in detention for several months and even years. The U.S. Supreme Court in February said that individuals in immigration detention are not entitled to periodic bond hearings, even if they have been detained for months or years. The case centered on immigrants in the United States legally whom the government seeks to deport after being convicted of crimes, asylum seekers, and immigrants seeking admission on other grounds. Public school funds Murray’s office used data from the National Center for Education Statistics for her point about the cost of public school education. The center’s website said "total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2013–14 amounted to $634 billion, or $12,509 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2015–16 dollars)." Multiplied by four, the total slightly overtakes the $50,000 estimate for detaining on immigrant for a year. However, the per-student estimate includes all levels of funding, not just federal. "The word federal was inadvertently included, and will be corrected in the committee record so there is no confusion going forward," said Murray’s spokeswoman Kerry Arndt. Officials at the National Center for Education Statistics provided us updated data for 2014-15 that showed total expenditures per-student were $13,100 (or about $2,400 more than the immigrant detention estimate when multiplied by four.) The federal government contributes billions to educating U.S. students. But the bulk of costs are picked up by state and local sources. Schools use federal funds for specific school programs and students, such as school lunches and support for children with disabilities. Public schools received $56 billion from the federal government for the 2014-15 school year, said Tom Snyder, director of annual reports and information staff at the National Center for Education Statistics. Broken down to the number of students in public schools that school year (about 50 million), schools received $1,122 per student (adjusted to 2016-17 dollars), Snyder said. Our ruling Murray said, "Each year ICE detains someone, it costs taxpayers over $50,000. For comparison, by the way, that's four times the amount the federal government spends on each child in our public schools." The current bed rate to house one adult detainee multiplied by 365 days is $50,074.35. The most recent per-student expenditure total multipled by four comes to $52,400. The numbers alone don't capture the full story. It's important to note that not all immigrants spend a year in detention. Also, schools' major sources of funding are local and state governments, not the federal government. Murray’s statement is partially accurate and needs additional information. We rate it Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Patty Murray
| null | null | null |
2018-05-11T14:40:59
|
2018-05-08
|
['None']
|
pomt-01419
|
In North Carolina, "now we're near the national average" for unemployment.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/thom-tillis/thom-tillis-says-north-carolina-near-national-aver/
|
Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, said during a recent debate that the Tar Heel State has come a long way since the onset of the great recession. "We came from far behind," Tillis said. "Fourth-highest unemployment rate when I came in, now we're near the national average." We wondered: Is North Carolina now "near the national average" for unemployment? As it turns out, things have improved in the state, but they haven’t improved as much as Tillis suggested. We looked at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment data. We found that for the most recent available month -- August 2014 -- North Carolina had an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent. That’s much lower than it was in January 2011, when Tillis assumed the office of state House speaker -- it was 10.4 percent. That’s a decline of just over one-third its previous level. (We’re not saying he gets all the credit for that drop -- simply that it happened during his tenure.) But despite this significant improvement in the North Carolina unemployment rate, it’s an exaggeration to say North Carolina is "near the national average." North Carolina’s August rate of 6.8 percent is 0.7 percentage points higher than the nation as a whole during August, and 0.9 points higher than the nation for September. (BLS releases national numbers before state-by-state numbers.) It’s a stretch to say it’s "near" the national average. By way of comparison, it took the nation nine months this year to drop its unemployment rate by 0.7 points, and it took North Carolina 11 months to shed 0.7 points to its current level. So a difference of 0.7 percentage points is a lot of ground to make up. Looking at North Carolina’s ranking among states provides further detail, but the result is not much more favorable to the accuracy of Tillis’ claim. In the state-by-state rankings for August, North Carolina is tied with Alaska for the 38th-best unemployment rate in the nation. That means it’s in the weakest one-quarter of states, not somewhere around half. Our ruling Tillis said that in North Carolina, "now we're near the national average" for unemployment. He has a point that the state has dropped its unemployment rate significantly in the past few years, but he exaggerates about how close the state is to the national average. In reality, North Carolina’s unemployment rate ranks it in the lowest one-quarter of states. We rate the claim Half True.
| null |
Thom Tillis
| null | null | null |
2014-10-08T16:23:21
|
2014-10-07
|
['North_Carolina']
|
goop-00739
|
Victoria Beckham Divorcing Over False Rumor David Got Teacher Pregnant,
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/victoria-beckham-divorce-david-teacher-pregnant-false/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Victoria Beckham NOT Divorcing Over False Rumor David Got Teacher Pregnant, Despite Report
|
12:35 pm, June 27, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-02353
|
Says Ralph Hall is "the oldest member in Congress ever."
|
false
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/20/now-or-never-pac/ad-attacking-texas-rep-ralph-hall-age-gets-histori/
|
A low-profile PAC has produced an ad attacking Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, a 17-term House member who is facing a tough primary runoff against former U.S. attorney John Ratcliffe. The ad’s sponsor -- the Now or Never PAC -- is going for the jugular by attacking Hall for his age. "Ralph Hall was first elected to Congress when Jimmy Carter was president," the ad says. "Now he’s 90 -- the oldest member in Congress ever. With Texas families struggling, he isn’t making a difference for us any more. Hall’s a Washington insider who’s voted for wasteful earmarks and to increase the debt ceiling. Times have changed. After 33 years, let’s bring Ralph Hall home." The ad is correct that Hall is 90 -- he turns 91 on May 3 -- but we raised our eyebrows at the claim that Hall is "the oldest member in Congress ever." It is correct to say Hall is the oldest serving House member in history. According to the U.S House of Representatives, Hall passed the previous record-holder for oldest serving member in 2012 -- Charles Manly Stedman, who died in office on Sept. 23, 1930. However, as students learn in basic civics class, "Congress" refers to the House and the Senate. And the Senate has had four members older than Hall, according to Senate historian Donald Ritchie. They are Carl Hayden, D-Ariz., who was serving at 91; Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who was serving at 92; Theodore Francis Green, D-R.I., who was serving at 93; and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who was serving as a Republican at 100. Ritchie noted one difference between the House and Senate: "House members stand every two years and senators every six, so of all the 90-year-old senators, only Thurmond won re-election in his 90s," as Hall is trying to do. Still, that’s not what the ad said. Our ruling The Now or Never PAC ad said Hall is "the oldest member in Congress ever." That’s not correct -- four members of Congress, all of them senators, have served at a more advanced age than Hall. So we rate the claim False.
| null |
Now or Never PAC
| null | null | null |
2014-03-20T17:16:45
|
2014-03-20
|
['United_States_Congress']
|
pomt-14717
|
91% of suspected terrorists who attempted to buy guns in America walked away with the weapon they wanted.
|
mostly true
|
/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/
|
U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy joined other Democrats in demanding the House take up a bill that would keep people on the FBI’s watch list from buying guns, saying far too many people on the list have been allowed to get firearms. Murphy tweeted a graphic on Dec. 8, 2015, claiming that "91 percent of suspected terrorists who attempted to buy guns in America walked away with the weapon they wanted." His tweet came after Republicans repeatedly blocked a bill that would keep people on the FBI list from buying guns. In an unusual procedural move, Murphy and other Democrats signed a petition to bring the bill to the House floor, but it currently doesn’t have the required 218 signatures for further action. The Senate earlier in December struck down a similar bill. We were curious if Murphy -- who is also running in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 2016 -- was right to say that 91 percent of suspected terrorists looking to buy guns were able to get one. Our research showed that is accurate by the best available estimates, but there are some caveats about the watch list we should keep in mind. Watching the watch list The FBI maintains what is informally known as the terrorist watch list through its Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains a consolidated file of "those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity." As you can imagine, some critics are uneasy about the government maintaining any sort of list designating people potential enemies of the state, but it’s generally considered a valuable tool for national security. The Democrats’ bill allows for cross-referencing the list while conducting a background check for a firearm purchase. The actual size of the list and who is on it is not public information, but we have estimates: In 2011, an FBI fact sheet said there were 420,000 people on the list. Current estimates have put the list at around 700,000. Since the database pulls information from U.S. and global agencies, only a relative handful — about 8,400 in 2011 and likely around 10,000 now — are American citizens or legal residents. Murphy’s stat comes from a March 2015 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which examined how many people applying for gun purchases were run through the FBI’s instant background checks and also were on the watch list. Between February 2004 (when the FBI started keeping tabs on people on the list trying to buy guns) and December 2014, there were 2,233 people on the list who applied to buy a weapon. Of those, 2,043 were allowed to proceed, including three applications to buy explosives. That’s a bit more than 91 percent. Experts have told PolitiFact that the GAO report is plausible, and not really that remarkable, considering how many gun purchases Americans have made in the past decade. But there are things to keep in mind. The data show how many weapons applications there were, not how many individuals, so one person could have potentially made several purchases. The report also didn’t show transactions made at gun shows, where federal background checks aren’t conducted, so the number actually could be higher. There also have been some issues with the terror watchlist database in the past. A 2009 U.S. Justice Department audit showed that 35 percent of the people on the list were "associated with FBI cases that did not contain current international terrorist or domestic terrorism designations" and should have been removed from the list. There also are multiple entries for slight variations of the same name, which has previously led to people with the same name as a person on the watch list being stopped at airports, a problem that experts say has largely been resolved. Our ruling Murphy said, "91 percent of suspected terrorists who attempted to buy guns in America walked away with the weapon they wanted." His figure comes from a GAO report that showed a bit more than 91 percent of gun store weapons applications by people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list were approved. There are some caveats to the watch list, including past issues with who is included and why. The report also didn’t distinguish how many individuals are making these applications, or how many people on the watch list potentially buy firearms at gun shows. But experts have told us the report is both plausible and not altogether unsurprising, given how many guns Americans purchase. We rate Murphy’s statement Mostly True.
| null |
Patrick Murphy
| null | null | null |
2015-12-29T10:30:44
|
2015-12-08
|
['United_States']
|
tron-01951
|
Gandhi and the Professor
|
fiction!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/gandhi-professor/
| null |
humorous
| null | null | null |
Gandhi and the Professor
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
vees-00246
|
VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Catholic priests say yes to taxation in exchange for rights to sex a spoof
|
none
|
http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-catholic-priests-say-yes-taxation-exch
| null | null | null | null |
fake news
|
VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Catholic priests say yes to taxation in exchange for rights to sex a spoof
|
April 23, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
snes-05753
|
ISIS members are operating a camp near El Paso and have been arrested trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tijuana-transfer/
| null |
Immigration
| null |
David Mikkelson
| null |
Is ISIS on the U.S.-Mexican Border?
|
13 October 2014
| null |
['El_Paso,_Texas', 'Mexico–United_States_border']
|
snes-00017
|
A photograph shows Barack Obama holding a t-shirt bearing the slogan "Michelle Obama 2020."
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michelle-obama-2020-shirt/
| null |
Fauxtography
| null |
Dan Evon
| null |
Does This Photograph Show Barack Obama Holding a ‘Michelle Obama 2020’ Shirt?
|
3 October 2018
| null |
['Michelle_Obama', 'Barack_Obama']
|
pomt-13024
|
Obamacare "was invented by liberal academic theorists."
|
mostly false
|
/florida/statements/2016/dec/05/rick-scott/rick-scott-misleads-about-inventors-obamacare-igno/
|
Donald Trump’s White House win gave Florida Gov. Rick Scott a powerful ally in his fight against Obamacare. In a Nov. 30 op-ed in USA Today, the former hospital executive reiterated his 2010 campaign pledge to fight for repeal of the federal health care law. "Other than President Obama and a few stragglers, everyone now realizes that Obamacare was a terrible notion," wrote the Republican governor. "It was sold on a lie. It was invented by liberal academic theorists who have no interaction with real families and businesses and therefore it doesn’t work." Scott’s piece leaves out that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is based on ideas from not just Democrats but also Republicans. Behind the trio of academics Scott’s spokeswoman said he was referring to three academics: MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, Harvard economist David Cutler and Ezekiel Emanuel, who is now chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. We interviewed all three about their role in the Affordable Care Act or with Obama. Gruber developed the economic model for the law, which is part of the reason he has received the most attention in the media. He was instrumental in helping Massachusetts create its law, and the federal government contracted with Gruber to provide technical assistance. The national law was patterned after the Massachusetts law, and they are similar in structure. They both require everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty; they both leave the current insurance system in place; they both expand coverage for the uninsured through subsidies or Medicaid. While media reports often refer to Gruber as the "architect" of the bill, some others who worked on the legislation rebutted that characterization. John McDonough, a Harvard health policy professor who was a senior adviser to the Senate Health and Education Committee when the law was written, previously told PolitiFact that Gruber’s involvement with his economic model was important, but he didn’t determine what policies would be in the law. As for Cutler, he appears to have had the least to do with the law. Scott’s spokeswoman pointed to an October article in Politico referring to him as a "key architect" of Obamacare. But most of the articles we read described Cutler as a health care adviser to Obama during his 2008 campaign and an advocate for the law. Cutler told PolitiFact that while he spoke with people from the Obama administration, members of Congress and interest groups, "I did not serve in the administration and never wrote a line of the ACA." Cutler also worked on health care during the Bill Clinton administration and is a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. Emanuel was a paid special adviser for health policy to the director of the federal Office of Management and Budget from 2009-11. Even though Scott called him an academic given his current posting at Penn, Emanuel wasn’t working in academia when he worked for the federal government. (His brother Rahm was President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff.) Emanuel told PolitiFact that he worked on a lot of the details of the bill including the subsidy levels. So to recap, two of the men cited by Scott played important roles in the development of the law: Gruber developed the economic model and was an adviser while the law was being written while Emanuel was also a federal government adviser and worked on details of the bill. Cutler didn’t have a direct role in writing the law although he was a health care adviser to Obama during his campaign. Experts said Scott’s statement exaggerates, omitting the role of many others in the creation of Obamacare -- including conservatives. "Scott’s comment is so sweeping that it’s hard for it to be anything other than an exaggeration," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. Bipartisan roots To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors. Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist." The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage. Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law. "There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care." Our ruling Scott said Obamacare "was invented by liberal academic theorists." Scott cherry-picked three advisers supportive of the law with ties to Obama. But he exaggerates by ignoring that many people over several decades from both parties developed the ideas for what would eventually become Obamacare. Most notably, Scott omits Republican Gov. Romney, who enacted a Massachusetts plan four years before the federal law passed, and the conservative Heritage Foundation, which was a strong advocate for the health care exchanges upon which both plans were based. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7ff1517d-5306-49ce-9a37-71a22c2c3137
| null |
Rick Scott
| null | null | null |
2016-12-05T06:00:00
|
2016-11-30
|
['None']
|
pomt-05615
|
New federal projections estimate that the health care overhaul "will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years -- well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed."
|
false
|
/georgia/statements/2012/mar/27/tom-price/us-rep-price-health-care-bill-cost-projections-ros/
|
Update: A prior version of this story said U.S. Rep. Tom Price's office did not respond to requests for comment by PolitiFact Georgia. His staffers did send us information about health care cost projections but did not provide an on-the-record comment. A talking point blasting President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation is bouncing across Georgia’s political messaging echo chamber as the U.S. Supreme Court tackles the law. Opponents of the 2010 bill have repeatedly said the changes are too expensive and have recently highlighted a March 2012 report from the Congressional Budget Office as proof. U.S. Rep. Tom Price of Roswell joined the chorus March 14 with a news release. "The new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years -- well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed," said Price, a Republican. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, a Republican from Ranger, said something similar, as did a Texas candidate for the U.S. Senate. Fox News published a story that said the law will cost twice as much as originally estimated. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case began Monday. It’s widely considered to be one of the most politically fraught cases in years. We sought help from our sister site PolitiFact National, which tested a statement by Ted Cruz, the Texas candidate. He tweeted: "Did you know ObamaCare will cost nearly twice as much as initially expected -- $1.8 TRILLION?" PolitiFact National found that Cruz’s statement was False. The CBO’s estimates have increased, but far less than Cruz, Price and others have said. The biggest problem is that their claims compare apples to oranges. The CBO’s job is to review initiatives in Congress that may have an impact on the federal budget. It did so in 2010 for Obama’s health care overhaul. That report projected that the program’s costs during a 10-year period starting in 2010 and ending in 2019 would total $938 billion. This figure is the program’s "gross" cost and does not take into account plan features that will pay for some of the changes, such as new taxes on higher-income earners and penalties for those who opt out of insurance. Costs will increase as the program phases in. Full implementation will take place in 2014. Next, we looked at the newest report. The gross cost estimate is $1.762 trillion from 2012 through 2022. We found the 2012 number is not comparable to the 2010 figure. First of all, the new report calculates costs over an 11-year span, not a decade as the 2010 report did. Furthermore, it includes costs for nine years in which the health care law would be in full effect. The 2010 report covered only six years of full implementation. A better comparison would be to look at costs for 2012 through 2019, the years covered by both reports. So that’s what PolitiFact National did. In the CBO’s first estimate, the gross figure is $931 billion. In the new estimate, the figure is $1.01 trillion. That’s an increase of less than 9 percent. This jump is far less than what Price’s numbers suggest. If the CBO’s estimate had truly changed to $1.76 trillion as his news release said, the plan’s costs would have nearly doubled. PolitiFact National also considered what the projected cost of the health care overhaul would be if it took into account aspects of the plan that would pay for some of the care. It felt this "net" cost number would be a more complete portrayal of the plan’s costs. It found that these net cost projections actually declined. The CBO’s 2010 estimate totaled $784 billion. The 2012 report revised it downward to $768 billion. Price’s claim that the health care overhaul "will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years -- well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed" uses numbers that are not comparable to make an incorrect assertion. When you do the math correctly, the gross cost projection increased by less than 9 percent. The net cost estimate has actually dropped. Price’s claim is False.
| null |
Tom Price
| null | null | null |
2012-03-27T06:00:00
|
2012-03-14
|
['None']
|
pomt-07522
|
We’ve introduced a bill that includes $12 billion in cuts over the next week.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-interim-spending-bill-would-cut-/
|
With the possibility of a government shutdown looming, Republicans have been saying their temporary spending bill will cut $12 billion. The statement was made by several key GOP members, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Here's what he said in a statement touting the bill, which would extend government funding by another week while also providing funds to the Pentagon for the remainder of the year. "As I’ve said throughout this process, since the spending binge in Washington is hurting job creation in this country, we’re going to fight for the largest cuts possible – real cuts, not more smoke and mirrors," Boehner said in the April 5, 2011, statement. "We’ve made clear that Democrats’ $33 billion proposal is not enough, and much of it is based on gimmicks. To make a positive impact on our economy, the cuts need to be significant, and they need to be real. Failing to make real cuts will send a signal to job creators that Washington is still not serious about getting government spending under control. ... "We’re not going to allow the Senate and White House to force us to choose between two options that are bad for America, whether it’s a bad deal that fails to make real spending cuts, or accepting a government shutdown due to Senate inaction. We’ve introduced a bill that includes $12 billion in cuts over the next week and funds our troops through the year. We may pass this to keep the government running if Democrats don’t listen to the American people and get serious about cutting spending." At issue is this line: "We’ve introduced a bill that includes $12 billion in cuts over the next week." Indeed, while the bill does include $12 billion in cuts, it also includes $7.6 billion in additional spending for the Defense Department -- a 1.5 percent increase over last year’s level. (This news release from the House Appropriations Committee breaks down the numbers in the bill.) So the net amount of cuts is $4.4 billion -- roughly one-third of the $12 billion figure Boehner cited in his statement. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that analyzes federal spending, considers the emphasis on the $12 billion figure misleading. "Saying the continuing resolution cuts $12 billion while ignoring the $7.6 billion in defense adds is like saying you met your weight loss goals if you don’t count your backside," Ellis quipped in an e-mail. We asked Boehner’s office for the speaker’s perspective, but we did not hear back. We find that Boehner, who decried budget "gimmicks" in his statement, is conveniently leaving out the spending increase and painting a misleading picture of the bill. Boehner’s statement -- "we’ve introduced a bill that includes $12 billion in cuts over the next week and funds our troops through the year" -- is carefully worded. The bill does include $12 billion in cuts to discretionary spending, and it does fund the Defense Department, as he indicated. But we also think Boehner’s artful wording suggests a much larger cut than the bill actually delivers when the additional defense spending is included. Using the net figure for spending reductions would have been a more accurate description. On balance, we rate Boehner’s statement Half True.
| null |
John Boehner
| null | null | null |
2011-04-07T16:42:39
|
2011-04-05
|
['None']
|
tron-01298
|
Tennessee high school principal’s remarks about prayer at a football game
|
truth!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/jodymccloud/
| null |
education
| null | null | null |
Tennessee high school principal’s remarks about prayer at a football game
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
chct-00226
|
FACT CHECK: Has Congress Passed Over 30 Continuing Resolutions In The Last 10 Years?
|
verdict: true
|
http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/18/fact-check-has-congress-passed-over-30-continuing-resolutions-in-the-last-10-years/
| null | null | null |
Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter
| null | null |
2:56 PM 01/18/2018
| null |
['None']
|
para-00214
|
Anyone who lives in the Territory who believes that this is all a level playing field with the rest of the country I think has got rocks in their head.
|
half-true
|
http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/21/kevin-rudd/go-north-and-subsidise-there-case-nt-tax-breaks/index.html
| null |
['Northern Development']
|
Kevin Rudd
|
Peter Martin, Peter Fray
| null |
Go North and subsidise: is there a case for NT tax breaks?
|
Wednesday, August 21, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
| null |
['None']
|
snes-04860
|
Earth's magnetosphere collapsed for two hours on 23 April 2016.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nasa-reports-magnetosphere-collapse/
| null |
Fauxtography
| null |
Kim LaCapria
| null |
NASA Reports Magnetosphere Collapse
|
26 April 2016
| null |
['None']
|
chct-00321
|
FACT CHECK: Have Israeli and Hungarian Border Walls ‘Proven Remarkably Effective’?
|
verdict: true
|
http://checkyourfact.com/2017/09/18/fact-check-have-israeli-and-hungarian-border-walls-proven-remarkably-effective/
| null | null | null |
Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter
| null | null |
6:27 PM 09/18/2017
| null |
['Israel']
|
pomt-03152
|
Chemical weapons have been used "probably 20 times" since the Persian Gulf War.
|
mostly false
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/10/ted-yoho/rep-ted-yoho-says-chemical-weapons-have-been-used-/
|
U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., has a question for those who support intervention in Syria’s civil war: "Why now, and why us?" President Barack Obama has urged targeted military strikes to punish Syria for alleged chemical attacks against its citizens, including deadly nerve gas on Aug. 21, 2013. The U.S. government says that attack may have killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. But Yoho told Fox Business Network that chemical weapons have been used repeatedly since the 1990 Persian Gulf War without a U.S. military response. "If you go back to the Iraq war, it's been used probably 20 times since then, and I just question the motive of right now in America acting out in the lead of this. I think it's wrong for America," he said Sept. 4, 2013. Experts have previously told us that chemical attacks have been rare since World War I. We wondered — have there been 20 such attacks in the last two decades? The question is partly one of definition. The most authoritative definition — set out by the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement among 189 countries to eliminate chemical weapons — is also very specific. It doesn’t include, for example, improvised use of industrial chemicals, or certain gases when used by a police force instead of a military. But it’s also a question of time line, and of evidence. Yoho’s office said he meant to include attacks prior to 1990, as well as recent attacks in Syria that are yet to be confirmed by the international community. Here’s what we found. We checked with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the group headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, that oversees the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into force in 1997. Experts say it’s the most authoritative source on chemical weapons attacks. Other than alleged attacks in Syria, which it’s still investigating, the group officially acknowledges just a single chemical attack since 1990 — by a Japanese cult using homemade sarin gas on the Tokyo subway that killed 13 people and sickened thousands. The last use by a country, according to OPCW’S brief online history, was by Iraq in 1988 — before the Persian Gulf War. "There have been numerous other alleged uses of chemical weapons in the Middle East during this period, but none has been shown to involve standard chemical weapons," said OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan. For example, in several countries that experienced protests during the "Arab Spring" of 2010 and 2011, there were allegations involving the use of tear gas, which is allowed for use in riot control by security forces, Luhan said. Other allegations included the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq, and the Palestinian city of Gaza. But those are also allowed by the convention "to illuminate or obscure the battlefield," he said. So if you look at the use of illegal gas by nations, there’s not even one example of a chemical attack like the one alleged in Syria since before the Persian Gulf War. (Our colleagues at the Washington Post Fact Checker dug up just a handful of examples this century.) And Yoho made his comment in the context of the Chemical Weapons Convention. "You know, this all goes back to the CWC agreement ... that stated that any country that produces, transports, stores or sells chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction are in violation," he said during the Fox Business interview. So when Yoho mentioned "probably 20" attacks since 1990, we concluded that he meant attacks by countries, rather than by individuals or rebels. And using those parameters, you can’t get to 20. But his office suggested he was also including Syria’s own attacks since 2012. In the interview, he mentioned "over 11" such attacks that could have triggered U.S. action. But those attacks aren’t yet well substantiated. In April, the New York Times reported Britain and France had written to the United Nations suggesting there was evidence Syria had used chemical weapons in its civil war. It was as the OPCW was investigating allegations of those attacks that the suburbs of Damascus were attacked Aug. 21. The OPCW team changed its focus to the later attack. It’s now processing evidence from its visit. The U.S. says it "assesses" that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons over the last year, but isn’t specific. The French mention a handful of April attacks. The United Kingdom counts at least 14 previous attacks. Yoho also counts non-state attacks and those with rough "improvised" chemical weapons that don’t qualify under the CWC — and some attacks by Iraq before 1990. For example, Chechnyan and Iraq insurgents have detonated chlorine tanks, said Philipp Bleek, an expert in nonproliferation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland counts 10 attacks that involved chlorine in Chechnya and Iraq in 1999, 2007 and 2009. Meanwhile, acknowledging that Yoho’s time line was "a little askew," his deputy chief of staff, Omar Raschid, said the congressman meant to include pre-1990 attacks by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran and against the Kurds. Those attacks are widely held up as a notable example of government chemical weapons use since World War II. They ended in the late 1980s. And while it’s true the United States looked the other way, it later used Iraq’s chemical arsenal as part of its justification for the 2003 invasion. Yoho also cited Russian security forces’ use of a "nonlethal" narcotic gas when they stormed a Moscow theater full of hostages held by Chechnyan rebels in 2002. Dozens of more than 800 hostages ultimately died from the effects of the gas, prompting "strong public debate" about whether Russia had violated the CWC, according to a U.S. Army medical textbook. But it fell into a legal loophole under that agreement, according to a book by the late Monterey Institute expert Jonathan Tucker in his 2007 book, War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda. So Yoho’s count — with its mix of state and non-state perpetrators and official and nonofficial chemical weapons — struck experts as odd. "Rep. Yoho is misinformed," said Matthew Meselson, a professor at Harvard University who specializes in chemical and biological defense and arms control and co-directs the Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons. The most authoritative source, he said, is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Bleek agreed, saying that while there have been a few non-state incidents, there’s no state attack in the past 20 years that compares with the Aug. 21 attack in Syria. "The problem with it is the parallelism that it implies — that there were earlier incidents in which we should have intervened. And at that point, it falls apart," said Bleek, who until recently was a senior adviser to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs. (He wasn’t speaking behalf of the Defense Department.) "You have some isolated instances, but the reality is, after World War I, there's just not a lot of state uses," Bleek added. "There just aren't a lot of countries in the world that stockpile or are suspected of having chemical weapons." Our ruling Yoho said chemical weapons have been used "probably 20 times" since the Persian Gulf War. If you count confirmed chemical weapons attacks by governments since 1990, then the answer is zero. Using looser definitions and a longer time frame gets Yoho to or beyond 20. Even if you don’t count the earlier Iraqi attacks that fell outside of Yoho’s stated time line, it’s possible to get to 20 attacks by counting the pre-Aug. 21 incidents in Syria, the use of chlorine gas by insurgents, the Tokyo subway attack and the Moscow theater rescue. Still, experts told PolitiFact that loosening the definition of what counts as an attack doesn’t make it an apples-to-apples comparison. Yoho talked about enforcement of an international agreement against chemical weapons, but he’s only correct when he uses a definition of chemical attacks that has nothing to do with that international understanding. We rate his claim Mostly False.
| null |
Ted Yoho
| null | null | null |
2013-09-10T10:41:50
|
2013-09-04
|
['None']
|
pomt-02660
|
Unemployment insurance kept more than 620,000 children out of poverty in 2012.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-facebook-post-says-unemployment-benef/
|
In the midst of a battle over whether to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed, President Barack Obama’s Facebook page posted this: "Unemployment insurance kept more than 620,000 children out of poverty in 2012. Tell Congress to renew job seekers' economic lifeline." We wondered whether this claim, which was posted Jan. 7, 2014, was accurate. We checked with Organizing for Action, the pro-Obama group that the president has deputized to handle his personal Twitter and Facebook accounts. Organizing for Action spokeswoman Katie Hogan said the numbers were based on a report by the Joint Economic Committee, a panel in Congress that consists of both House members and Senators. While the Joint Economic Committee is bipartisan as well as bicameral, the report was written by the panel’s Democratic staff, which is overseen by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. In its summary table, the Joint Economic Committee report says that, nationally, 2,458,295 Americans were lifted out of poverty due to unemployment insurance payments, including 618,788 children. According to the table, the calculations were based on U.S. Census Bureau data. Specifically, the committee used publicly available data files that had information on 387,876 individuals, with the identifying information removed. If the difference between a person’s income and the poverty line was less than the amount of unemployment insurance they had received, they were counted as having been lifted out of poverty due to unemployment insurance. This number was used as the basis for estimating the number nationally. So, unless the Joint Economic Committee staff muffed the calculations, the Obama Facebook post was in the ballpark, though the figure was actually slightly less than 620,000, instead of "more than 620,000," as the Facebook post said. That said, it’s worth taking a closer look at the numbers -- specifically the threshold for what counted as being in poverty. The table notes that the committee used the Supplemental Poverty Measure rather than the traditional way of measuring poverty. What’s the difference? Currently, poverty is officially measured by establishing a set of income thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions, then comparing family incomes to those levels. Being in poverty means that you have an income below the threshold for your family type. But for years, scholars have debated whether there is a better way to measure poverty than the official statistic. One of the efforts to test an alternative measurement is called the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The Supplemental Poverty Measure doesn’t just consider cash earned but also in-kind transfers such as food stamps, as well as taxes paid and medical and work-related expenses, such as child care and commuting costs, wrote University of Massachusetts-Amherst economist Nancy Folbre in a New York Times blog post. It also employs a "new standard of need, linked to what low-income families actually spend," she wrote. In 2010, a federal interagency working group gave a green light to begin calculating the statistic, but only as long as the long-standing poverty calculation retained its official status. Because the two poverty rates are calculated differently, the findings about how extensive poverty is in the United States are almost guaranteed to be different, though the poverty rate may end up higher for some subgroups using the supplemental method even as it is lower for other subgroups. So how does the use of the supplemental figure shape the Joint Economic Committee’s findings? A footnote to the chart reports that while the supplemental measure found that nearly 2.5 million Americans were lifted out of poverty by unemployment benefits, the number would have been 1.7 million using the official poverty calculation. The report doesn’t say how many children would have been lifted out of poverty using the traditional poverty calculation, but since the supplemental measure has sometimes shown lower poverty rates among children, it’s certainly plausible that the number also would be smaller than 618,788. If the proportion for children was the same as it was for individuals as a whole, the number of children lifted out of poverty would be 427,914. Our ruling Obama’s Facebook post said that "unemployment insurance kept more than 620,000 children out of poverty in 2012." The number has some backing from an analysis of Census Bureau data published by the Democratic staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. However, this analysis used an unofficial poverty measure rather than the traditional one, and the report Obama’s team cites as support acknowledges that using the traditional poverty measure would have decreased the number of individuals lifted out of poverty by about one-third. A similar decrease among children would have meant the number of children would have been 427,914 rather than roughly 620,000. Overall, we rate the claim Half True.
| null |
Barack Obama
| null | null | null |
2014-01-13T16:18:37
|
2014-01-07
|
['None']
|
pomt-05151
|
A million people a year come into the U.S. legally. No other country even comes close to that figure.
|
true
|
/florida/statements/2012/jun/20/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-us-admits-1-million-immigrants-ye/
|
During a Fox News interview on June 18, 2012, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., discussed immigration and said that "a million people a year come into the U.S. legally. No other country even comes close to that figure." We’ll check these two claims in order. "A million people a year come into the U.S. legally" The numbers can get a little complicated, but all the experts we spoke to said Rubio was on solid ground. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the United States accepted 1,062,040 legal permanent residents in fiscal year 2011, a number that has been fairly steady over the past few years. Of this number, roughly 45 percent were new arrivals and about 55 percent were people already in the U.S. whose status was upgraded to "permanent." Separately, the U.S. admitted more than 4.4 million people in 2010 on a long-term temporary basis, either for employment or study. This number does not include a much larger total (roughly 42 million people) admitted for shorter stays, including visitors for pleasure or short-term business. So while one could say that 46 million people actually "come into the U.S. legally," we’ll give Rubio the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the 1 million who were granted permanent resident status, not those admitted on a temporary basis. "No other country even comes close to that figure" We looked at immigration statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a research group for advanced industrialized nations. Using 2009 statistics, the only nation that came close to the U.S. in permanent immigrant inflows was Germany. That year, the U.S. had 1,130,800 permanent immigrants, compared to 606,314 for Germany. So the U.S. had numbers about twice as big. The third-place finisher, Spain, had 469,300. So Rubio’s correct on this point, too. Some additional context Without taking away from the accuracy of Rubio’s statements, we thought it would be worthwhile adding a bit of context. There are actually many other countries that absorb immigrants at a higher rate than the U.S. does once you factor in the size of each nation’s population. Using the measurement of permanent, annual immigrant inflows per overall population, the U.S. in 2009 ranked only 11th out of a selection of 28 advanced industrialized nations, trailing such countries as Australia, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway and Ireland. And using United Nations data on the cumulative number of resident immigrants as a share of total population, the U.S. ranks only 25th in the world. Some of the nations with higher immigrant percentages are small, oil-rich Arab countries with large foreign-worker populations, but others with higher rankings include Israel, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Spain and Sweden. On the other hand, the U.S. does diverge from most of the rest of the world on the rights granted immigrants once they are made permanent. "Where the U.S. differs from most European countries is that the immigrants we admit are generally eligible for full membership in society through naturalization, and that the immigrants' U.S.-born children are automatically citizens with full rights," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center. "Neither of these is generally the case in Europe." Our ruling Rubio is right that "a million people a year come into the U.S. legally" and that "no other country even comes close to that figure." We rate his statement True.
| null |
Marco Rubio
| null | null | null |
2012-06-20T15:50:26
|
2012-06-18
|
['United_States']
|
pomt-01347
|
Says David Perdue wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, which would cost Georgia schools $1 billion a year and eliminate millions in student loans.
|
half-true
|
/georgia/statements/2014/oct/22/democratic-senatorial-campaign-committee/does-david-perdue-want-eliminate-us-education-depa/
|
A new ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wants to paint GOP Senate hopeful David Perdue as an extremist when it comes to education. Education has already been a hot issue in the tight governor’s race. The ad, "Help," sounds the alarm for the topic in the closely watched Senate battle between Perdue and Democrat Michelle Nunn. The main claim: Perdue wants to abolish the federal Department of Education, which would jeopardize $1 billion for Georgia public schools already struggling with tight budgets. "That would devastate Georgia schools," the ad narrator says. "A billion dollars cut from K through 12. Eliminate all federal student loans." Republicans have called for eliminating the federal department since Ronald Reagan first pledged to do so in his 1980 presidential campaign. The issue has lived on in some conservative circles, even amid stiff Congressional opposition for decades. Reagan himself switched positions in 1983, after a federal report warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity" in American schools. The son of two teachers, Perdue has talked at length about the need for more local control. But does that translate into eliminating the federal department? And would the cut mean such a dramatic loss to school funding in Georgia? PolitiFact Georgia decided to check it out. First, we looked at Perdue’s stance. When asked about Common Core in a July interview with the Marietta Daily Journal, Perdue called for the academic standards to be abandoned and "went on to say the federal Department of Education should be abolished." The July story does not include a direct quote. But a July story in the Covington News quotes Perdue as saying the department should be "defunded" and fixed. In October, the Political Insider blog referred to the MDJ story calling for the department to be abolished and quoted a campaign spokeswoman as saying Perdue’s plan called for shifting money from the federal to the local level. Perdue did not respond to repeated requests to clarify those comments. However, when asked by Channel 2 Action News to address the specific charge at a press conference at the National Federation of Independent Business on Oct. 2, he did not deny the claim. "My position all along on this has been that big government is not producing results," Perdue said. "So what I would look at doing is moving a lot of those dollars that go into the federal government back in the local school systems where the best decision can be made." States handle nearly all education policy and issues. At the federal level, the Education Department conducts research, enforces federal anti-discrimination laws and, as the ad says, handles federal financial aid in loans and grants. But as the ad suggests, there is also plenty of money at hand. The ad says eliminating the department would cut $1 billion in K-12 funding every year and eliminate student loans. That’s a slightly conservative estimate, given that Georgia will receive nearly $1.1 billion in elementary and secondary school funding for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, and another $1.1 billion for the current year, according to federal figures. There is even more money in the two federal loan programs set up by the Higher Education Act of 1965 – with Georgians receiving about $2.9 billion in federal direct student loans, records show. In addition, more than 297,000 Georgia students received federal Pell Grants in 2012-2013, totaling nearly $991million, according to federal numbers. The U.S. Education Department has administered all of those programs since 2010, when the government eliminated the Federal Family Education Loans program and began making loans directly to students and parents. That is to say, the loan programs’ operation has been shifted already. And Congress could again shift them to another agency if it voted to eliminate the federal education department. Reagan had called for such a transition years ago. Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, said he doesn’t believe the next Congress will have the majority votes needed to abolish the U.S. Department of Education or the funding it provides for student loans and other programs. Even with talk of abolishing the department in the past, discussions have called for those programs to move to the Department of Health and Human Services, he said. "I don’t think you could find 15 votes for doing away with the funding," Hess said. Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, agreed that abolishing the agency is "not equivalent to ending all the programs/funding streams that currently are gathered there." Coulson said there were federal education programs before the cabinet-level education department was established under President Carter, and other agencies continue to run some programs. The Head Start pre-K program, for example, is still run by DHHS, he said. That brings us back to the ad, which claims David Perdue supports eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, a position that could cripple Georgia schools, students and loan recipients. Our research finds there is reason to believe Perdue does support abolishing the department and transferring funding to the local level. But it is alarmist to suggest the end of the department would be the end of all K-12 money. And suggestions that it would mean the end of student loan programs ignores the history that has already shuffled their administration. For that reason, we rate the claim Half True.
| null |
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
| null | null | null |
2014-10-22T00:00:00
|
2014-10-14
|
['None']
|
bove-00060
|
CLAIM: A Times of India newspaper clipping is being shared on social media claiming the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Uttar Pradesh has passed a law that introduced 6% GST on Sunday church offerings.
|
none
|
https://www.boomlive.in/6-gst-on-sunday-church-offerings-did-up-govt-pass-a-new-law/
|
FACT: False. The Yogi Adityanath led-BJP government in UP has not passed any such law.
| null | null | null | null |
6% GST On Sunday Church Offerings? Did UP Govt Pass A New Law?
|
Jun 08 2018 6:30 pm, Last Updated: Jun 08 2018 6:32 pm
| null |
['Bharatiya_Janata_Party', 'Uttar_Pradesh']
|
pomt-06577
|
The Fed created $1.2 trillion out of nothing, gave it to banks, and some of them foreign banks, so that they could stabilize their operations.
|
true
|
/ohio/statements/2011/sep/28/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-fed-created-12-trillion-o/
|
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants to put people back to work, but since the private sector has not had much success, he wants to prime the economic pump by spending public money on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. There’s plenty of demand out there, Kucinich told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Sept. 7, pointing to an American Society of Civil Engineers report identifying an immense need for infrastructure repairs and rebuilding. But where would the money come from? States and local governments don’t have those kinds of dollars, Kucinich rightly pointed out. But, the Ohio Democrat added, the federal government does. "We just found out the other day that the Fed created $1.2 trillion out of nothing, gave it to banks, and some of them foreign banks, so that they could stabilize their operations," he told Cavuto. That got PolitiFact Ohio’s attention. After all, how can anybody simply create $1.2 trillion out of nothing? Well, it turns out Kucinich was pretty much on the money, no pun intended. Let’s take the first part of his sentence, that the Fed created $1.2 trillion out of nothing. The "Fed" in this case is the Federal Reserve, our country’s central bank. It’s the job of the Fed to use monetary policy to keep inflation in check and to stimulate the economy to create jobs. It does this by buying and selling government-backed securities that either increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation. The Federal Reserve also serves as the lender of last resort to its member banks who are having liquidity problems and can’t go to other banks for short-term loans. With that in mind, let’s go back to 2008 and 2009 when the United States banking system was on the brink of disaster. Then-President George W. Bush created the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, to buy up banks’ bad investments and later to infuse the institutions with badly needed capital. In Cleveland, PNC National Bank used TARP money to buy troubled National City. TARP, however, is not what Kucinich was talking about. TARP was orchestrated by the U.S. Treasury and used money borrowed from the sale of U.S. securities such as Treasury bills. Nor was he talking about the $800 billion stimulus package of 2009, much of which was in the form of tax cuts. Kucinich was talking about $1.2 trillion that the Federal Reserve had on loan, primarily to banks, at the peak of its emergency lending during the financial crisis. The figure comes from a Bloomberg News investigative story this past summer that analyzed detailed loan information released by the Federal Reserve. Indeed, many banks did get money. Morgan Stanley at $107.3 billion received the most, followed by Citigroup at $99.5 billion and Bank of America at $91.4 billion. The loans, however, were not handed out the way your bank down the street dispenses money, explained Walker Todd, former assistant general counsel to the Federal Reserve banks in Cleveland and New York City. Regular banks are limited in how much they can loan based on their access to money, be it deposits or other forms of financing. "But the Fed, uniquely among institutions in our society, gets to create money out of thin air," Todd said. It does so by simply increasing the balance in a member bank’s account. No actual money is printed. It just shows up in the electronic ledger, new money that never existed before that’s now in circulation, boosting the aggregate money supply. Each bank, however, did have to put up assets as collateral in case the money wasn’t repaid. Some of those assets, according to Bloomberg, were junk bonds. Eventually, all the money was repaid, with interest. But according to Todd, rather than wipe the money off its books, the Federal Reserve chose to use much of it to further stimulate the economy by purchasing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities on the open market. So that money remained in circulation. Finally, what about Kucinich’s claim that some of the $1.2 trillion went to foreign banks? Again, Kucinich was correct. Two of the several foreign banks getting help were Royal Bank of Scotland Plc at $84.5 billion and UBS AG of Switzerland at $77.2 billion. The Federal Reserve treats foreign banks operating in the United States the same as U.S. banks because they are all part of the same financial system. On a side note, even some companies, including General Electric, received emergency cash. So while Kucinich’s comment that "the Fed created $1.2 trillion out of nothing, gave it to banks and some of them foreign banks so that they could stabilize their operations" is a bit flip, maybe even pejorative, he was essentially correct in describing the unique money-creating capabilities of the Federal Reserve and how it was used. On the Truth-O-Meter, his statement rates True.
| null |
Dennis Kucinich
| null | null | null |
2011-09-28T06:00:00
|
2011-09-07
|
['Federal_Reserve_System']
|
snes-06049
|
The purpose of the 'crash' or 'brace' position in airliners is to kill passengers quickly in the event of an crash, or to preserve their remains so as to make identification of bodies easier.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crash-position/
| null |
Travel
| null |
David Mikkelson
| null |
Does ‘Brace Position’ Kill Passengers Quickly in an Air Crash?
|
24 July 2006
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-03734
|
Says "A baby in Coos County is two times as likely to be born to a mother who is someone who used tobacco during her pregnancy as is the average baby born in Oregon or the U.S."
|
true
|
/oregon/statements/2013/apr/12/caddy-mckeown/are-babies-born-coos-county-twice-likely-be-born-s/
|
Legislation to let counties set additional taxes on tobacco squeaked through the Oregon House last week on a 31-to-29 vote. Lawmakers opposed to higher taxes said it wasn’t fair to squeeze more revenue out of cigarette addicts. Lawmakers in support said smoking is a public health hazard and that local governments should be allowed to assert local control. Freshman Rep. Caddy McKeown, D-Coos Bay, said she too struggled with aspects of House Bill 2870, but then reeled off some disturbing statistics courtesy of the Coos County public health department, including this one: "A baby in Coos County is two times as likely to be born to a mother who is someone who used tobacco during her pregnancy as is the average baby born in Oregon or the U.S.," she said. Twice as many smokers? What’s up, Coos County? Studies show that prenatal smoking puts babies at greater risk of low birth weight, respiratory illnesses and other potential health problems. State and county numbers McKeown’s office shared a 2011-12 annual report on the status of public health in Coos County. We also checked with Stephen Brown, a tobacco prevention program coordinator at Coos County. Figures from 2011 birthsshow that in Coos County, 23.4 percent of mothers used tobacco while pregnant. Statewide, the figure was 10.7 percent. That’s more than double. In real numbers, that means 135 of 577 babies born in Coos County in 2011 were born to smokers. Statewide, 4,795 of 45,136 babies born in 2011 were born to smokers. Brown says that studies show that people are less likely to smoke the higher their educational attainment. Prenatal tobacco use is greater among women who don’t finish high school than among women who graduate from college. People living in poorer households are more likely to smoke. Coos County lags the state in educational achievement and in per capita income. Certainly Coos is not the only county to post rates at least twice Oregon’s. Douglas and Josephine counties posted rates at 25 percent, and Lake County was the highest at 26.5 percent. Those are also rural counties similar to Coos in income and education demographics. Multnomah County was at 6.8 percent. National average A national average is harder to come by, mainly because not all states use the same "certificate of live birth" forms to collect prenatal information. The Annie E. Casey Foundation calculates a U.S. figure of 9 percent for births in 2010, but the number leaves out about 20 states. Oregon, which was included, was at 11 percent. Still, the average is backed up by a hefty Oregon Health Authoritydocument, which reports prenatal tobacco use across the country went from 13.6 percent in 1996 to 10.7 percent in 2005. In Oregon, the percentage of women smoking during pregnancy also dropped during that period, from 17.8 percent to 12.4 percent. The ruling: We can say with certainty that babies born in Coos County are twice as likely to have mothers who smoked during pregnancy than the average baby in Oregon. That also looks to be the case using older or incomplete national averages. We rate the statement True.
| null |
Caddy McKeown
| null | null | null |
2013-04-12T06:00:00
|
2013-04-04
|
['Oregon', 'United_States', 'Coos_County,_Oregon']
|
snes-01472
|
Snapchat, a popular messaging service, announced in November 2017 that it is being closed down by the end of the year.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/snapchat-shutting-end-2017-prank/
| null |
Uncategorized
| null |
Brooke Binkowski
| null |
Is Snapchat Shutting Down by the End of 2017?
|
6 November 2017
| null |
['None']
|
goop-00725
|
Ryan Seacrest Quitting “Live” Over Kelly Ripa’s Attitude?
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/ryan-seacrest-quitting-live-kelly-ripa/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Ryan Seacrest Quitting “Live” Over Kelly Ripa’s Attitude?
|
3:00 am, June 29, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
hoer-00697
|
Buscopan Syrup Recall Warning
|
true messages
|
https://www.hoax-slayer.com/buscopan-recall-warning.shtml
| null | null | null |
Brett M. Christensen
| null |
Buscopan Syrup Recall Warning
|
7th March 2011
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-15360
|
Says Hillary Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions.
|
mostly true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/
|
As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates’ supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations. Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clinton’s list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders’ top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light. "Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media," the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. "Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people." The meme is topped by each candidate’s presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.) We can’t tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look. We’ll start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent "people," as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. We’ll also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations. We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidate’s political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (Clinton and Sanders have announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.) For Clinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6. Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288). That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILY’s list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. It’s worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York. The database results for Sanders are also quite close to what’s in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500). In the meme, the letter carriers’ union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs’ attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising. So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out. As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. "That is not made clear" in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. "Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign." Also, the "donors" listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees’ families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that he’s a union member wouldn’t be recorded. Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet. All told, it’s possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, "labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and we’re talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders’ donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clinton’s." Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. "The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built," he said. Our ruling Social media memes say that Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.
| null |
Facebook posts
| null | null | null |
2015-07-07T10:51:33
|
2015-07-06
|
['Bernie_Sanders']
|
pomt-01180
|
Says President Barack Obama "has lost more members of the House and more members of the Senate than any president ever has lost" in modern times.
|
mostly true
|
/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/07/matthew-dowd/has-president-obama-lost-more-democratic-seats-con/
|
The Democrats took their final drubbing of the 2014 midterm election Dec. 6 with the decisive defeat of Sen. Mary Landrieu in the Louisiana Senate runoff. The election of U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy means Republicans will hold 54 seats in the new Senate. Assessing the Democratic plight, one-time Republican consultant turned news analyst Matthew Dowd said President Barack Obama had overseen historic losses for his party. "President Obama has demonstrated he’s very good at winning his own elections," Dowd said on ABC’s This Week on Dec. 7, 2014. "But in modern times, he has lost more members of the House and more members of the Senate than any president ever has lost." We asked Dowd what he meant by modern times and he told PunditFact he was thinking of post-World War II. We went to the congressional records to see how this president and his party stack up compared to past administrations. We decided to look at how many seats for the own president's party, be it Democrat or Republican, shifted during each president's time in office. We ran the numbers two ways. In the first approach, we looked at the electoral impact of a president who was running on his record. This meant we ignored party shifts in the year he was first elected because at that point he had no presidential track record. This meant that for two-term presidents, we summed the changes for the first midterm, the re-election, and the second midterm. We scored single-term presidents for just one midterm. In the second approach, we allowed for a presidential coattail effect. If the president’s name was on the ballot, we counted any party shifts, including those in the year he was first elected. So for all presidents, we summed the changes from his first election to his last midterm. We treated Presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford a little differently because they took office when their president died or resigned. We counted their first election, if they won, as a case of running on their record and added in any shifts in the balance of congressional party power. Here’s what we came up with. President President's party shift in Congress (Without first election) President's party shift in Congress (Including first election) Franklin Roosevelt (D) -71 seats +38 seat Harry Truman (D) -17 seats -17 seats Dwight Eisenhower (R) -83 seats -60 seats John F. Kennedy (D) -2 seats -22 seats Lyndon Johnson (D) -14 seats -14 seats Richard Nixon (R) -1 seats 11 seats Gerald Ford (R) -54 seats -54 seats Jimmy Carter (D) -16 seats -16 seats Ronald Reagan (R) -24 seats +24 seats George H.W. Bush (R) -7 seats -10 seats Bill Clinton (D) -59 seats -67 seats George W. Bush (R) -18 seats -26 seats Barack Obama (D) -85 seats -52 seats The table makes it clear that the first election makes a big difference. Without it, Dowd is correct, though just narrowly. Obama saw his party lose a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of three elections. Interestingly, President Dwight Eisenhower runs a close second with 83 fewer Republicans. These are net numbers so ground lost in one election could be made up in the next. For Eisenhower, 1958 was the worst year. For Obama, it was 2010. However, when we include every year when the president’s name appeared on the ballot, the ranking shifts. Obama first took office in a wave election that cost Republicans quite a bit. When we run the numbers this way, President Bill Clinton comes in as first among losers, followed by Eisenhower and Ford. Obama takes fourth place. To viewers, it wasn’t clear what yardstick Dowd was using. While he noted that Obama was good at winning his own elections, he didn’t specifically set a timeframe for measuring how the balance of power in Congress has shifted over time. We think both measures are largely valid. One argument for giving more weight to the first approach is Dowd was talking about the effect that presidents have on their party. Until you win election, you aren’t president, and the gains or losses in your first election shouldn’t count. We should also highlight that no president deserves full credit or blame for party gains or losses. To say that Obama has lost members of his party in Congress is not to say that he alone made that happen. (A technical note: We used the official party counts by the House of Representatives and the Senate. They record the numbers at the start of each Congress. If members die, resign or switch parties during their term, we don’t include those changes. Also, we did not include independents or members of other parties who would then choose to caucus with one of the major parties.) Our ruling Dowd said Obama has lost more seats held by his party in the House and Senate than any modern president. By one valid measure, Dowd is correct. By another measure, Obama would rank fourth. That, however, does not make Dowd’s claim inaccurate. It just means that it needs clarification and some additional information. That meets our definition of Mostly True.
| null |
Matthew Dowd
| null | null | null |
2014-12-07T17:06:42
|
2014-12-07
|
['None']
|
vogo-00428
|
Statement: “Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Ocean Beach residents all voted overwhelmingly against the alcohol ban,” Pacific Beach resident Gordon Nall wrote in a letter published by the Union-Tribune Feb. 17.
|
determination: true
|
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-the-beach-booze-ban-vote/
|
Analysis: Three years ago, voters narrowly passed a proposition that permanently banned alcohol at all city beaches, Mission Bay Park and all other coastal parks in San Diego. It followed mounting concern that alcohol contributed to reduced public safety, especially with holiday crowds.
| null | null | null | null |
Fact Check: The Beach Booze Ban Vote
|
February 25, 2011
| null |
['Pacific_Beach,_San_Diego', 'Mission_Beach,_San_Diego', 'Ocean_Beach,_San_Diego']
|
pomt-09987
|
More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States.
|
half-true
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/
|
With growing violence on the U.S.-Mexico border fueled by powerful drug cartels, officials from both countries have been repeating a shocking statistic to suggest this isn't just a Mexican problem. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States . . . more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border," President Barack Obama said on a visit to Mexico on April 16, 2009. "So we have responsibilities as well." Obama joins many other U.S. and Mexican officials — from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. — who have cited versions of the 90 percent figure in arguing for greater U.S. intervention. For his part, Obama has pledged to commit more money and resources to stem the flow of guns south of the border. But Obama, Clinton and others have left out important qualifiers when citing the 90 percent statistic, which originates from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency doesn't have statistics for all weapons in Mexico, where gun sales are largely prohibited; the figure is based on only guns that the Mexican government sent to the ATF for tracing and that the ATF found were traceable. Along those lines, the number was cited correctly by William Newell, an ATF special agent who oversees the bureau's operations along border in Arizona and New Mexico, when he testified before a House subcommittee on March 24. "In fact, 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico, and which are then successfully traced, were determined to have originated from various sources within the continental U.S." Gun rights groups say the number has been widely and intentionally distorted to advance a gun control agenda. And on April 2, 2009, Fox News ran a story on its Web site dismissing the statistic as a "myth." The article cites statistics from the Mexican government that suggest only about a third of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico are submitted to the ATF for tracing; and it notes that many guns submitted to ATF cannot be traced. Therefore, the writers conclude, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the United States. According to the article, "a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S." The article goes on to say many weapons are coming from a wide variety of foreign sources including China, South Korea, Spain and Israel, as well as from the Russian mafia and other nefarious sources in Asia, South and Central America. "Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," National Rifle Association spokesman Chris Cox told Fox News. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment." ATF officials challenge the suggestion that Mexico only sends them guns they suspect are from the United States. In fact, the ATF found about a quarter of the 90 percent were made in other countries and then taken illegally from the United States into Mexico. So what does that mean about the accuracy of Obama's claim? Are the guns submitted to ATF a representative sample of all guns confiscated by Mexican authorities? In an interview on CBS's Face the Nation on April 12, 2009, Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, stood behind the 90 percent figure. "Ninety percent of all weapons we are seizing in Mexico ... are coming from across the United States," Sarukhan said. "Just on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone there are approximately 7,000 (gun shops). And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases are coming from those gun shops." Alberto Islas, a security consultant with Risk Evaluation in Mexico City, said the 90 percent figure is based on an incomplete sample. Mexican officials only require ATF traces of guns used in "high-impact crimes," he said. That certainly includes crimes involving violent drug cartels. That's the sample from which the ATF derives its 90 percent statistic. Driving up that percentage, Islas said, is the fact that nearly all of the handguns traced by ATF come from the United States, Islas said, while assault weapons are more of a mixed bag — some come from the United States, but others come through drug routes in Eastern Europe, Africa and elsewhere. When looking at all the weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico, Islas said the figure of 90 percent coming from the United States may be a bit on the high side, but he said the real number is certainly a lot higher than the 17 percent cited by Fox. We think the ATF number, presented in its proper context, provides legitimate and useful information to weigh when considering U.S. policy. We find the implication that the number could be as low as 17 percent is unrealistic because it assumes that every gun that has not been traced comes from somewhere other than the United States. That's faulty logic. But we think Obama also mischaracterizes the statistic some when he says 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States. Not every gun recovered in Mexico is submitted to the ATF for tracing. And so Obama and others can't know exactly what percentage come from the United States. They can only speak to the guns successfully traced by the ATF. And so we rule Obama's statement Half True.
| null |
Barack Obama
| null | null | null |
2009-04-16T20:26:40
|
2009-04-16
|
['United_States', 'Mexico']
|
snes-06114
|
Unsuspecting phone customers are gulled into placing calls to area codes in the Caribbean that result in hefty charges.
|
outdated
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/809-area-code-scam/
| null |
Fraud & Scams
| null |
Snopes Staff
| null |
809 Area Code Call Warning
|
30 July 2001
| null |
['Caribbean']
|
pomt-08953
|
The lieutenant governor has the power to be an "economic ambassador" and "negotiate" on economic development
|
half-true
|
/rhode-island/statements/2010/jul/23/jeremy-kapstein/kapstein-says-lieutenant-governor-has-power-negoti/
|
Here we go again. Another election year, another debate over what the lieutenant governor's job is all about and whether it's even worth having the position at all. The characters might change, but the story stays the same. The sitting lieutenant governors try to defend their work. The challengers promise they'd do more with the office, or in the case of Cool Moose candidate Robert Healey, eliminate it altogether. Enter one of the newest candidates for the job, Red Sox senior adviser Jeremy Kapstein. When appearing on WPRO's Dan Yorke Show Tuesday, Kapstein, a Democrat, promised that, if elected, he'd be a salesman for the state, wooing developers and creating jobs in the process. But it was what he said about the lieutenant governor's responsibilities that caught our ear: "The lieutenant governor has the power to go out as an independent constitutional office and has the budget to be this economic ambassador. And then, when the deal is brought in, to actually negotiate and help the [state Economic Development Corporation] so that it is a good deal for the taxpayers of the state." That sounded like quite a lot of authority for an office that some have argued shouldn't even exist. Kapstein's claim has created a minor stir among Rhode Island politicos, so we elected to send it to the Truth-O-Meter. What we really wanted to know is whether the state Constitution gives a lieutenant governor any authority to be an "economic ambassador" who could negotiate on behalf of the EDC. Here's what we found: Apart from references to how and when the lieutenant governor is elected, there are few mentions of this job in the Constitution. Statutes within the state's General Laws note that the lieutenant governor is responsible for chairing several boards and commissions. But the Constitution does not lay out a specific set of duties that the state's number-two executive can, or must, perform. It wasn't always that way. It used to be that the lieutenant governor was authorized to take over when the governor was out of state. But that power was stripped in a 1992 constitutional amendment. Until 2003, lieutenant governors were also responsible for presiding over the state Senate. These days, however, the most significant constitutional duty assigned to the lieutenant governor is as the governor's understudy: "When the governor elect shall die, remove from the state, refuse to serve, become insane, or be otherwise incapacitated, the lieutenant governor elect shall be qualified as governor at the beginning of the term for which the governor was elected." We admit, we were intrigued by the question of who would determine that a governor had gone insane. But we digress. Kapstein campaign manager Joe Rodgers said the candidate acknowledges the ambassador and negotiator roles are not specifically defined in the state Constitution, but Rodgers said Kapstein believes an effective lieutenant governor would take on those types of duties. All this raises some interesting questions about Kapstein's claim. On the one hand, because the Constitution gives the lieutenant governor no specific powers, he's wrong to suggest that it does. But on the other hand, does the lack of specifics mean a lieutenant governor could do whatever he or she wants? His Democratic primary opponent, incumbent Elizabeth Roberts, branded herself during her first term as a champion of health care and traveled across the state to encourage Rhode Islanders to "Buy Local." No one questioned her authority to do so. The same goes for Kapstein's ability to negotiate on behalf of the Economic Development Corporation. There's nothing in the Constitution to say he can't do so, assuming the agency wants his help. The EDC board is chaired by the governor, which means Kapstein would need the governor's approval to take on any of this responsibility. Roger Williams Law School Prof. Jared Goldstein said the absence of a defined job description makes it hard to determine what's appropriate. "The question is whether the lieutenant governor on his or her own volition can just decide to take on various activities that are neither authorized by statute or by the Constitution," he said. "Yet there's simply nothing in the Constitution or in statutes or in case law that speaks to that." So there we are, a little stuck. Kapstein's not completely right. But he's not really wrong either. As much as we hate to do it, we'll split the difference and call it Half True.
| null |
Jeremy Kapstein
| null | null | null |
2010-07-23T00:01:00
|
2010-07-20
|
['None']
|
snes-05988
|
This Halloween has been designated as "National Kill a Pitbull Day."
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kill-a-pit-bull-day/
| null |
Junk News
| null |
Snopes Staff
| null |
Has This Halloween Been Designated ‘National Kill a Pit Bull’ Day?
|
27 September 2012
| null |
['None']
|
goop-00153
|
Justin Theroux, Laura Harrier Dating,
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-laura-harrier-not-dating/
| null | null | null |
Gossip Cop Staff
| null |
Justin Theroux, Laura Harrier NOT Dating, Despite Reports
|
4:05 pm, October 10, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-01632
|
I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon … Most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon.
|
false
|
/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/26/don-lemon/cnns-lemon-says-automatic-weapons-are-easy-get/
|
Fans of the Second Amendment have been chiding CNN’s Don Lemon for his comments about the sorts of guns you can legally buy in this country. They’ve said Lemon was confused, and his exchange with conservative radio host Ben Ferguson on Aug. 20, 2014, was embarrassing. It began when Lemon, broadcasting live from Ferguson, Mo., said he supported the Second Amendment but that he doubted the Founding Fathers were thinking about automatic weapons when they wrote it. Ferguson shot back. "Let’s deal with the facts here," Ferguson said. "A semi-automatic weapon is a gun that you or I is allowed to own and in different places they have different rules. But to imply that anyone can just go out and buy an automatic weapon is just not true, Don." "What do you mean?" Lemon said. "During the theater shooting in Colorado, I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon, and I maybe have shot a gun three, four times in my life. I don’t live in Colorado. I think most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon." This fact-check zeros in on Lemon’s claim that "most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon." The gun Lemon bought in Colorado was an AR-15. The version sold by the Bushmaster company is described as a semi-automatic. When Ferguson pointed out the difference between a fully automatic and an semi-automatic weapon, Lemon dismissed the distinction as a matter of semantics. "An automatic weapon is something that you can shoot off a number of rounds very quickly," Lemon said. That is not the legal definition of an automatic weapon, but this debate pulls back the curtain on a couple of wrinkles in what federal law says and does not say. For starters, the law fails to define the term "automatic." Semi vs. fully automatic The 1968 Gun Control Act defines a semi-automatic as "any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." The key part there is the "separate pull of the trigger." One pull = one shot. The law speaks clearly about what it means by the term semi-automatic. When it comes to the term "automatic," a little inference is required. The 1934 National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Note that part about more than one shot by "a single function of the trigger." One pull = many shots. That’s the legal difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon. The AR-15 that Lemon bought was a semi-automatic. People can go out and buy such guns at many stores across the country. Buying a fully automatic gun is a very different and more restricted process, which we’ll get into in just a bit. But it’s interesting that while the legal definition of a machine gun talks about firing automatically, there is no definition of an automatic weapon as such. We asked the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and a couple of top legal experts on federal gun laws. No one could point to legal language, court ruling or federal rule that make a machine gun interchangeable with an automatic, even though in a practical sense, they are. Yes, you can buy a machine gun During the exchange between Lemon and Ferguson, Ferguson said "the majority of private citizens are not allowed to own full automatic weapons." Steven Howard is a lawyer and firearms expert based in Lansing, Mich. Howard said the ban on machine guns is not quite as complete as Ferguson’s words might sound. "Most people can buy machine guns in lots of states," Howard said. "But, and this is one of those classic big ‘buts,’ they have to get through a background check by FBI that is as thorough as if you are getting clearance to become a federal agent." Howard said those checks can take up to six months. States such as California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership under any circumstances. But in about half the country, including Florida and Texas, if you pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and have a clean record free of any history of domestic violence or a felony conviction, you can get yourself a machine gun legally. However, Joseph Olson, recently retired as professor of law at Hamline University, and a former board member of the National Rifle Association, said it won’t be a new one. "There was a freeze put on them in 1986," Olson said. "New Jersey representative (William) Hughes had an amendment that limited them to the ones that were registered at that time. There are a bit under 300,000 in circulation." New devices blur the lines Since the key legal difference between a semi-automatic and a machine gun is whether pulling the trigger releases one bullet or many, it is worth noting that government regulators have approved devices that, when added to a rifle, allow a gun like an AR-15 to fire many rounds at great speed. They are called bump stocks, or trigger activators. The hunting supplier Cabela’s offers one called the Slide Fire. "Maximize your fun with this safe and innovative AR-15 stock, which uses bump-fire technology to shoot as quickly as desired," the retailer says on its website. Videos show shooters going through clip after clip of ammunition. Howard said that while the rate of fire mimics a machine gun, the mechanism is different. "If you very slowly pull the trigger, the recoil causes the gun to jump back and forth," Howard said. "And that causes the trigger to be pulled." By government standards, this retains the role of human intervention for each shot fired. Howard said the impact of trigger activators is less than meets the eye. He said they easily fail and make a gun difficult to aim. "People don’t use them in crimes because you have to use them so carefully," Howard said. Still, there are enthusiastic reviews on the Cabela's website. A buyer who calls himself "Freddie Joe" wrote, "This is an extremely fun addition to your A/R. The only problem will be the amount of shells you will go through. I went through 300 in a couple of days ... When you get really good at using this product, you can empty a 30-round clip in a matter of seconds. Cool!" Our ruling CNN’s Lemon said that many people can go out and buy an automatic weapon. Lemon spoke as though the gun he had purchased was an automatic. It was not. It was a semi-automatic, meaning each shot requires a separate pull of the trigger. The ease of purchase that Lemon described applies to semi-automatic guns. The legal status and availability of semi-automatic and fully automatic guns are quite different. Lemon was further incorrect when he didn’t revise his language and insisted that the distinction was just a matter of semantics. Acquiring a machine gun is prohibited in some states, while much more heavily regulated in others. We rate Lemon’s claim False.
| null |
Don Lemon
| null | null | null |
2014-08-26T16:22:21
|
2014-08-20
|
['None']
|
snes-03877
|
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau announced a new law to arrest and fine anyone wearing clown costumes.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justin-trudeau-arrest-clowns/
| null |
Junk News
| null |
David Mikkelson
| null |
Justin Trudeau: “Clowns Will Be Arrested and Fined $10,000”
|
5 October 2016
| null |
['Justin_Trudeau', 'Canada']
|
tron-00145
|
Bible Fused to Steel Found in World Trade Center Wreckage
|
truth!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/bible-fused-to-steel-found-in-world-trade-center-wreckage/
| null |
9-11-attack
| null | null | null |
Bible Fused to Steel Found in World Trade Center Wreckage
|
Oct 21, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
snes-05640
|
A gang member died after trying to gold plate his genitals.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gold-member/
| null |
Crime
| null |
Dan Evon
| null |
Gang Member Gold Plates Genitals, Dies
|
23 June 2015
| null |
['None']
|
vogo-00110
|
Doubling Down in District 4: Fact Check TV
|
none
|
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/doubling-down-in-district-4-fact-check-tv/
| null | null | null | null | null |
Doubling Down in District 4: Fact Check TV
|
May 20, 2013
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-11727
|
The candidates controlled by Madigan, all of them have said, ‘The answer to our problems is a massive income tax hike.’
|
mostly false
|
/illinois/statements/2017/dec/14/bruce-rauner/rauner-distorts-dems-message-illinois-income-tax/
|
Speaking to reporters after a speech in Chicago on Dec. 4, Gov. Bruce Rauner predicted a re-election victory in next year’s gubernatorial race and warned of dire tax consequences if any of the three main Democratic candidates for the post win. "You know what will happen? We will get a massive income tax hike. The candidates controlled by (House Speaker Michael) Madigan, all of them have said, ‘The answer to our problems is a massive income tax hike,’ " Rauner said, referring to Democratic candidates Daniel Biss, Chris Kennedy and JB Pritzker. All three have stated they support replacing Illinois’ flat-rate income tax with a system in which those with higher incomes pay higher rates. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Rauner went on to list examples of other states — New Jersey, New York, Minnesota and California — where people earning $40,000 a year pay more in state income tax than the 4.95 percent rate now applied to all Illinois taxpayers. "They will sock the middle class with a tax hike that Madigan and his puppets want and it will destroy Illinois," Rauner said, noting that the progressive tax movement would be deceptively labeled as a "tax the rich" effort. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Rauner’s statement contained a generous dollop of campaign vitriol — the Madigan-as-puppet-master theme is a running theme for Rauner — but it also brings up what is sure to be another key issue in the governor’s race. Would a Democratic victory for governor next year bring about a graduated-rate income tax for Illinois? And would that be tantamount to a "massive income tax hike?" Long road ahead Rauner’s statement implies a Democratic governor could muscle through a change that would replace Illinois’ current flat-rate income tax system with a multi-rate system. That overlooks the fact that the single-rate income tax is enshrined in the Illinois Constitution of 1970, establishing a high hurdle for enacting any change. "A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate," begins Article IX, Section 3 of the constitution. To impose a progressive tax system lawmakers would have to amend the constitution. That requires approval of three-fifths majorities in both the Illinois House and Senate to put the issue on a general election ballot. Then voters must approve the amendment by "either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election," according to Article XIV, Section 2 of the constitution. From 2013 to 2017, Democrats held three-fifths majorities in both the House and Senate yet still could not muster votes to back ballot referendums on a limited graduated income tax plan to impose higher rates on the very rich. Since then, Democrats have lost their three-fifths margin in the House, though they control the chamber. In theory that could change in the next election, but to push through a tax referendum in the House before then would require a handful of Republican votes. And that’s not likely to happen. The governor, incidentally, is irrelevant in this process. There is no veto power over constitutional amendments. If approved by voters, they become law. Under the constitution, the only path to get a tax referendum before voters is through the Legislature. Citizen-led petition drives for such a purpose are not allowed. Bracketology Rauner also equates a graduated tax system to a "massive tax increase" on the middle class. But he tries to make the point with cherry-picked examples. A single filer earning $40,000 annually in California pays 6 percent. It’s 5.525 percent in New Jersey, 6.45 percent in New York and 7.05 percent in Minnesota, according to 2017 tax data compiled by The Tax Foundation. Those tax rates are all higher than the 4.95 percent now imposed on Illinois taxpayers. But there are other graduated income tax states Rauner failed to cite where the numbers would undermine his premise. Individuals earning $40,000 a year pay 3.36 percent under Arizona’s graduated-rate system. In Maryland, those who earn between $3,000 and $100,000 pay 4.75 percent. North Dakota taxes $40,000 at 2.04 percent, and its highest bracket imposes only a 2.9 percent rates on incomes over $416,700. Ohio’s top rate, 4.997 percent, applies to income of more than $210,600. Those in Ohio earning $40,000 pay 2.969 percent. Even Connecticut’s 5-percent tax on $40,000 is very close to Illinois’ 4.95 percent. (Connecticut’s top bracket, 6.99 percent, kicks in at $500,000 for individual filers.) While Democratic candidates say they support a graduated-rate system, they have been talking in the abstract and none have proposed specific rates. Given the difficulty of amending the constitution, lawmakers would be loath to enshrine tax and income brackets into it, and any rate-setting would fall to the legislature after a constitutional change. The realpolitik of that hasn’t stopped Rauner from predicting how it would all play out. "They say, ‘Let’s tax the rich,’" Rauner said in the same Dec. 4 press conference. "Well, first of all, you watch business owners flood out of this state when that happens and our unemployment rate is going to go through the roof." Immobile movement The last big push for a comprehensive progressive tax amendment came during the 2013-14 legislative session and it died without receiving a vote in either the House or Senate. The proposal contained no income or tax bracket figures. In 2012, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a liberal-leaning fiscal watchdog, created a progressive tax model in which taxpayers with incomes of less than $100,000 — 94 percent of those in Illinois — would pay the same or less than the 5 percent tax rate in effect at that time. The model nonetheless projected a 5.8 percent increase in revenue from the income tax because of higher rates on the wealthiest Illinoisans. CTBA Budget Director Bobby Otter said that model would likely hold up today because the current Illinois tax rate, 4.95 percent, is close to that used to make the projection. The easy way Raising taxes is never easy, but procedurally it is easier to change rates than change the constitution. Indeed, the Illinois tax rate has bounced around in recent years, from 5 percent in 2010 to 3.75 percent in 2015 to 4.95 percent starting last summer. When we contacted Rauner’s campaign to ask whether the Republican believed a Democratic successor would try to raise the latest rate, spokesman Justin Giorgio referred us to a recent column in The News-Gazette of Champaign-Urbana. That column focused on reporting by Crain’s Chicago business about a Nov. 20 visit by Pritzker to its editorial board. During that visit, the Democrat mentioned a progressive income tax and potentially new tax revenue for the state if it legalized marijuana. Pritzker was not quoted as directly calling for a tax hike: Some will come from amending the Illinois Constitution to allow a progressive income tax, something that would require a referendum vote, likely in 2020. Pritzker said he could not estimate how much that would pull in, but he projected the state would net another $300 million to $700 million by legalizing and taxing marijuana. Would that be enough to meet all the needs while (economic) growth accelerates? "No. But it depends on how you prioritize," Pritzker replied. After the meeting, a Pritzker campaign spokeswoman issued a statement to clarify that "J.B. does not believe we should raise taxes on middle-class families, period." In sum, Pritzker backs a graduated tax amendment, thinks it will reap more revenue for the state and acknowledges that still may not be sufficient to meet needs. But his spokeswoman suggests only the wealthy should be asked to pay more. (The article cited by the Rauner campaign discussed only Pritzker, though Biss and Kennedy have endorsed the progressive tax concept.) Our ruling Rauner said Democratic gubernatorial "candidates controlled by Madigan, all of them have said, ‘The answer to our problems is a massive income tax hike.'" Rauner’s "controlled by Madigan" tag is aimed at the three highest-profile candidates, Pritzker, Kennedy and Biss, and suggests without proof they are all acting at the behest of the powerful House Speaker. All three have advocated for a change from a flat income tax rate to a graduated-rate system in which tax rates are higher for those with higher incomes. Despite Rauner’s examples, a progressive income tax system does not necessarily mean a tax increase for the middle class. And there is no evidence that anyone in Illinois politics has a blueprint for income and tax brackets under a potential Illinois system. The closest such blueprint, from 2012, had the vast majority of voters paying the same or lower taxes. Nor is that decision up to the governor. It would take three-fifths of the General Assembly and a majority of voters to bring a progressive tax to reality. Recent history does not point favorably to this happening without significant Democratic gains in the Legislature. Pritzker was squishy when discussing immediate revenue needs with Crain’s, but Rauner cites the Crain’s article as Pritzker’s solid endorsement of a "massive tax increase." We rate Rauner’s statement Mostly False. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Bruce Rauner
| null | null | null |
2017-12-14T05:00:00
|
2017-12-04
|
['None']
|
pomt-13072
|
A picture shows former President Bill Clinton naked with another woman.
|
pants on fire!
|
/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/15/political-insider/website-caught-publishing-fake-news-leaked-photo-n/
|
A website called the Political Insider is publishing fake news of a leaked photo of former President Bill Clinton sitting naked next to a woman massaging his back. The image in question is part of a British contemporary artist’s portfolio of placing celebrities and prominent figures in compromising situations. We've included it below, but be warned, it's a bit jarring. "The Clintons are Finished Forever After Dirty Picture LEAKS! (NSFW)," the website wrote Nov. 15, 2016. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com The post says the images are not confirmed, but then goes on to speculate who the woman is and surmises that both the person in the image and Clinton are left-handed: "If that’s not Bill Clinton, it sure looks like him." The post tracks back to the Twitter account of a user named 0Hour. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com In reality, the image was cropped and lifted off the website of contemporary artist Alison Jackson. Here is a screengrab of the full image from her website: And here is how Jackson describes her work. "Alison Jackson is renown for her explorations into how photography and the cult of the celebrity have transformed our relationship to what is ‘real’. Her notorious photographic portraits, life-like sculptures, films and videos are startlingly realistically staged affairs that cast uncannily styled actors into an entirely fathomable projection of a future that could have been; or the intimate, often salacious, imagined private moments of media icons such as Diana Princess of Wales, the Queen of England, Marilyn Monroe, George Bush, Brad and Angelina, and David Beckham. Jackson’s productions stress-test the implicit belief that a photograph can capture a frozen moment of ‘truth’." Jackson also has portrayed President-Elect Donald Trump as part of work for Vanity Fair. She has a new book with her images, entitled Private 2016, available on Amazon. Through a spokeswoman, Jackson told us that she is "delighted one of my works is part of the ‘fake news’ movement. ... My work is about celebrities and public figures in private, things we have all imagined but never seen before. We think we know them intimately but we only know them through the media imagery -- very few of us have met them for real. Celebrities and public figures are created by the media industries." Our ruling The website Political Insider is peddling fake news showing an alleged image of Bill Clinton naked with another woman. The image was actually created by a contemporary artist who depicts celebrities and politicians in compromising positions. It is not a real image. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9dd956aa-6b64-45b1-ad42-922b9af7cbd6
| null |
Political Insider
| null | null | null |
2016-11-15T16:30:03
|
2016-11-15
|
['Bill_Clinton']
|
snes-06454
|
A judge told an atheist plaintiff who challenged religious holidays that atheists already have their own holiday: April 1.
|
false
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/atheist-holiday/
| null |
Humor
| null |
David Mikkelson
| null |
Holiday for Atheists
|
5 April 2004
| null |
['None']
|
pose-01201
|
Conduct a review of all city holdings to see if any could or should be sold. Consider using the potential revenue to pay other one-time expenses that might be incurred.
|
in the works
|
https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/adler-o-meter/promise/1291/look-surplus-properties-sell/
| null |
adler-o-meter
|
Steve Adler
| null | null |
Look for surplus properties to sell
|
2015-01-19T00:02:00
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-10966
|
Says John Brennan "was a member of the Communist Party during the Cold War."
|
mostly false
|
/florida/statements/2018/jul/19/ron-desantis/was-john-brennan-once-member-communist-party/
|
Republican U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis cast doubt on the credibility of John Brennan over the former former CIA director’s furious reaction to President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Brennan called Trump’s meeting with Putin "nothing short of treasonous" on Twitter. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com DeSantis, who is vying for Florida governor, appeared on Fox News hours later to respond. "John Brennan was a disaster as CIA director," DeSantis said on Fox News on July 16. "He was a disaster as the counterterrorism official. He was a member of the Communist Party during the Cold War." DeSantis added: "So this is not exactly the guy I would listen to about Russia." We wanted to look into his statement that Brennan was a member of the Communist Party during the Cold War. We found Brennan has acknowledged voting for a communist presidential candidate in 1976. That does not mean he was a member of the Communist Party. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and pundit Sebastian Gorka are examples of Republicans who framed similar criticism of Brennan more accurately, singling out the vote but not going as far as saying he belonged to the party itself. Where is this coming from? Long before his appointment as CIA director in 2013, Brennan took a required polygraph test before entering the agency. Brennan discussed the test at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference in September 2016, CNN reported. He was a panelist in a discussion about diversity in the intelligence community. Brennan was asked about whether past activism would create a barrier for diverse candidates seeking to enter the intelligence community later in life. According to Brennan, the polygrapher asked him, "Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the U.S.?" Brennan said he was apprehensive — he had voted for Gus Hall for president in 1976, which was while the Cold War was underway. (The Cold War is generally defined as running from 1947 to 1991.) The New York Times reported Hall earned more support from American voters in his 1976 presidential campaign than in his other three. He won 58,992 votes, putting him in eighth place, behind candidates from the Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, American Independent, American and Socialist Workers parties. "I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, 'OK, here's the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens,'" CNN has quoted Brennan as saying. (We searched for video but did not find it.) Brennan told the polygraph operator that he had voted for Hall, but added that he was never a member of the Communist Party. Speaking at the conference, Brennan said he was relieved to have been accepted into the CIA, because he worried about having compromised his chances by being forthcoming. "I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I'm not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, 'OK,' and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, 'Well, I'm screwed.'" Brennan used the anecdote to make a point about room for diversity in the CIA ranks. "So if back in 1980, John Brennan was allowed to say, 'I voted for the Communist Party with Gus Hall' ... and still got through, rest assured that your rights and your expressions and your freedom of speech as Americans is something that's not going to be disqualifying of you as you pursue a career in government," CNN reported him as saying. Does any of this make Brennan a member of the Communist Party at the time? No. In 1976, Brennan was studying political science at Fordham University. This was the first election after the Watergate scandal, which left many Americans disillusioned with American politics. He could have voted for the Republican candidate Gerald Ford, who had controversially pardoned Richard Nixon, or he could have cast his ballot for Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter. Stephen Craig, a political science professor at the University of Florida, said, "Carter (was) a southerner who was not trusted given the legacy of the Jim Crow South by many Democrats and other left-leaning voters." "Carter was an outsider who promised ethical governance but still represented mainstream politics," added Gregory Koger, a political science professor at the University of Miami. Importantly, experts agree that voting for a particular candidate in a party does not make the voter a member of that party. Becoming a member of a party is a much more specific and intensive commitment than simply pulling a lever in the ballot booth. "Brennan was … a young idealistic student pursuing studies in politics who shared the concerns of many about the health of the U.S. political system during this time period," said Thomas Sutton, a political science professor at Baldwin Wallace University. Brennan’s former CIA deputy chief of staff Nick Shapiro told PolitiFact Florida that it wouldn’t make sense for someone who was a secret communist to out themselves repeatedly. Our ruling DeSantis said Brennan "was a member of the Communist Party during the Cold War." Brennan has openly confirmed voting for a Communist Party candidate for president in 1976. But the DeSantis campaign did not provide evidence that he was a card-carrying party member, and we did not find any. Voting for a particular candidate in a party does not make the voter a member of that party. Because it contains an element of truth but twists facts to give a different impression, we rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Ron DeSantis
| null | null | null |
2018-07-19T16:21:57
|
2018-07-16
|
['Cold_War', 'John_O._Brennan']
|
pomt-10967
|
Puerto Rico mayor facing fraud charges over $3M in federal disaster relief
|
false
|
/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/19/blog-posting/misleading-article-implies-puerto-rico-hurricane-a/
|
A headline on an online story says, "Puerto Rico mayor facing fraud charges over $3M in federal disaster relief." The article includes a photo of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, wearing a shirt with "NASTY" printed in large block letters. This photo is taken from a television appearance following Hurricane Maria, which struck Puerto Rico in September 2017. Cruz was a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, accusing him of providing insufficient aid to the island. On Facebook, the story's link preview shows Cruz’s face above the headline. But she has not been accused of fraud related to hurricane relief. The article, published July 15 on Your News Wire, reveals that Cruz isn’t facing charges at all. A different Puerto Rican mayor was accused. (Fact-checkers at The Weekly Standard caught that the initial version of the story said that Cruz and her party faced charges, but the language had been changed by the time we looked at it. Some versions of the story copied elsewhere had not made the change.) We decided to dig a little deeper and see what else might be misleading about this story. Wrong mayor The mayor facing fraud charges is Miguel Ortiz-Vélez of Sabana Grande. Federal authorities have accused him of running a three-year scheme, beginning in 2013 and ending in 2016, to defraud the government of $3 million. Ortiz-Vélez proposed projects to the Puerto Rico Department of Education, but intentionally overestimated their cost. He gave the extra money to the companies he contracted out for the work, as well as to the city. The owner of one of the companies reimbursed Ortiz-Vélez nearly $23,000 in cash. Ortiz-Vélez was indicted on July 2 for theft of government money, mail fraud, and money laundering. If he is found guilty, he could face up to 30 years in prison. Close, but no cigar The article on Your News Wire mixes the alleged Ortiz-Vélez scheme with another case of fraud in Puerto Rico. Two finance directors in Tao Baja were accused of misusing federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Your News Wire story implies that this money was meant as hurricane relief funds, calling it "assistance funds" that were given "during the same general time frame as the disaster." This scheme took place from 2014 until early 2016, long before Hurricane Maria in September 2017. The money was meant to be used for promoting economic development and building new public facilities. Instead, the finance directors put the funds toward paying municipal employees and contractors. This investigation is ongoing, and, again, separate from the investigation into Ortiz-Vélez. A lawsuit There have been allegations against Cruz as well, which some outlets have connected to misuse of federal disaster relief funds. In February 2018, a former government worker sued the municipality of San Juan. She claims that the city was committing fraud by paying some contractors far more than others. She also claims she was demoted for speaking out against the corruption. A local San Juan paper reported that, according to two unnamed sources, the FBI has opened an investigation into the alleged fraud. However, the plaintiff of the suit resigned in June 2017, before Hurricane Maria. The suit does not include any mention of federal disaster aid. Our ruling The article said, "Puerto Rico Mayor Facing Fraud Charges Over $3M In Federal Disaster Relief." The article was styled to make it seem that Cruz, the vocal San Juan mayor, was responsible for the fraud. The entire first half of the article focuses on her liberal politics and her objections to Trump, rather than any specific crimes. All of this is severely misleading. The reporting on the underlying fraud itself is bungled. It has nothing to do with "federal disaster relief." The story mixes up two unrelated cases of fraud stemming from Puerto Rico that took place over a year before Maria struck. We rate the statement False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com
| null |
Bloggers
| null | null | null |
2018-07-19T15:36:41
|
2018-07-15
|
['Puerto_Rico']
|
vees-00184
|
VERA FILES FACT CHECK: ICC case vs Duterte 'thrown out'
|
fake
|
http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-icc-case-vs-duterte-not-thrown-out
| null | null | null | null |
fake news
|
VERA FILES FACT CHECK: ICC case vs Duterte NOT 'thrown out'
|
June 06, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
faan-00093
|
“We have aircraft strafing” in Iraq
|
factscan score: false
|
http://factscan.ca/tom-mulcair-we-have-aircraft-strafing-in-iraq/
|
Canadian aircraft did not engage in strafing in Iraq as Mulcair claimed. They dropped bombs, but did not engage in the more dangerous act of flying low to fire on ground targets known as strafing.
| null |
Tom Mulcair
| null | null | null |
2015-04-25
|
arch 24, 2015
|
['None']
|
tron-03303
|
Read the email, make a wish, and it will come true
|
fiction!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/ringwishes/
| null |
promises
| null | null | null |
Read the email, make a wish, and it will come true
|
Mar 16, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
tron-02576
|
U.S. flag flying upside down and below Mexican flag
|
truth!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/montebello-flag/
| null |
miscellaneous
| null | null | null |
U.S. flag flying upside down and below Mexican flag
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['United_States', 'Mexico']
|
pomt-00740
|
In recent polling in battleground states, a "majority of the people" said Hillary Clinton "is untrustworthy."
|
half-true
|
/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/21/reince-priebus/polls-show-majority-swing-states-see-hillary-clint/
|
On the day Hillary Clinton announced her run for president, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tried to hang an "untrustworthy" label on her. Priebus, the former Wisconsin GOP chairman, made his charges April 12, 2015, on CBS' "Face the Nation." After host Bob Schieffer noted that a national GOP web ad had attacked Clinton two days earlier, there was this exchange with Priebus: Schieffer: Is there a concern that you might, you know, that it might backfire here and make her, you know, people sympathetic to her with all of this starting so soon? Priebus: I don't think so. I mean, she has kind of portrayed this air of inevitability. I think if you look at the facts of the case -- which is where I really would like to stay as chairman of the party -- you know, if you look at the facts of the scandal that surrounds her, you look at the facts of the recent polling -- where a majority of people in battleground states say that she is untrustworthy -- when you look at the fact she has 100 percent name recognition -- Schieffer: A majority -- Priebus: -- majority of the people polled in Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Florida, said she is untrustworthy. So, Priebus claims that in recent polling a majority of people in battleground states said Clinton is untrustworthy. After Schieffer interjected, Priebus singled out Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Florida. However, as we’ll see, the polling he relies on also surveys two other battleground states. And there is an issue with what pollsters refer to as a plurality, which is not the same as a majority. Poll results breakdown Before jumping into the polling results, we'll note that we rated another Priebus claim about Clinton on the same program as Half True. Priebus said Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen." The monarchies in the first three countries did give money to the Clinton Foundation, but not to her personally. Yemen, which does not have a king, did not. To back Priebus’ polling claim, his office pointed us to the latest swing state surveys from Quinnipiac University Poll. The Hamden, Conn., college regularly polls nationally as well as in what it describes as swing states for the 2016 presidential election. They are the four states Priebus cited, plus Ohio and Pennsylvania. The latest results from Quinnipiac in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia were released April 9, 2015; and the latest results for Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania were released March 31, 2015. All of the people surveyed were self-identified registered voters and the margin of error in each survey is about 3 points. One question was: "Would you say that Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not?" Here are the results: State Yes -- Clinton is honest and trustworthy No -- Clinton is not honest and trustworthy Don’t Know or No Answer Colorado 38% 56% 6% Virginia 40% 52% 7% Iowa 43% 49% 8% Florida 41% 50% 9% Pennsylvania 44% 49% 7% Ohio 47% 46% 7% At first glance, it might seem Priebus' claim is largely correct. In five of the six states, more people say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy than say she is. But a closer look shows that in three of the five states that didn't break in Clinton's favor, neither the yes nor the no answer got more than 50 percent. In other words, there was not a majority opinion. And in Ohio, the plurality opinion was, by one point, in Clinton's favor. Before we close we'll note some national polls, done in March or April 2015, that asked the same question or a similar one. In a CNN/Opinion Research Center poll of adults, 50 percent said Clinton is honest and trustworthy and 49 percent said she isn't. In a ABC News/Washington Post poll of adults, 46 percent said she is honest and trustworthy and the same percentage said she isn't. In a CBS News poll of adults, 42 percent said Clinton is honest and trustworthy and 47 percent said she isn’t. A Fox News poll of registered voters asked if "honest" describes Clinton -- 44 percent said yes and 52 percent said no. Our rating Priebus said that in recent polling in battleground states, a "majority of the people" said Hillary Clinton "is untrustworthy," and he went on to cite Colorado, Virginia, Iowa and Florida. But there are two other states -- Ohio and Pennsylvania-- included in the six swing states that are surveyed by Quinnipiac University Poll, which is what Priebus cites to back his claim. In five of the states -- Colorado, Virginia, Iowa and Florida and Pennsylvania -- more people said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy than said she is. However, the percentage reached a majority -- over 50 percent -- in only Colorado and Virginia. Meanwhile, by 47 percent to 46 percent, people polled in Ohio said Clinton is honest and trustworthy. For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page.
| null |
Reince Priebus
| null | null | null |
2015-04-21T12:56:22
|
2015-04-12
|
['None']
|
hoer-00286
|
PlayStation 4 Like and Share Giveaway
|
facebook scams
|
https://www.hoax-slayer.com/200-pieces-playstation-4-scam.shtml
| null | null | null |
Brett M. Christensen
| null |
PlayStation 4 Like and Share Giveaway Facebook Scam
|
November 11, 2013
| null |
['None']
|
pomt-07100
|
On subsidies for ethanol production.
|
full flop
|
/virginia/statements/2011/jun/22/george-allen/george-allen-changes-stance-again-ethanol/
|
Republican George Allen made headlines in 2005 when he voted for a bill in the U.S. Senate that helped the ethanol industry by mandating greater use of the biofuel in the production of gas. The story was first reported in the Des Moines Register, which noted that Allen "used to be a reliable vote against expanding the ethanol industry." There were two reasons why Iowa’s largest newspaper was interested in the changed position of the Virginia senator. The first concerned the nature of ethanol, a type of alcohol that can be combined with gasoline and burned in engines. Demand for ethanol drives up demand for corn, which is used to produce the alcohol. And no state produces more corn than Iowa. The second reason had to do with politics. Iowa is home to caucuses that make it the first state to weigh in on whom the Democrats and Republicans should nominate for president. And back then, Allen, was giving plenty of thought to a White House bid. The Register wondered whether Allen’s change on ethanol might "have anything to do with the possibility that he may enter the Iowa caucuses and run for president in 2008?" At the time, an Allen spokesman told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the senator’s position had "evolved with technology" which had "made it more practical, more efficient and more affordable to produce biofuels." Some were skeptical of Allen’s conversion. "If you think presidential ambition has nothing to do with it, I’ve got some nice beachfront property in Des Moines to sell you," quipped Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University. Allen made several trips to Iowa in 2006 -- as well as to other key presidential primary states, including New Hampshire. But his national ambitions tumbled later that year when Allen was upset in his reelection bid for the Senate by Democrat Jim Webb. Now, let’s fast forward to 2011. Allen is campaigning hard to regain his old Senate seat next year and seeking to establish his credentials as a fiscal conservative. Although Allen is the favorite to win the GOP nomination, there’s a feisty group of other Republican candidates nipping at his heels. With the United States having maxed out its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, Congress faces an Aug. 2 deadline to reach a deal that cuts spending and raises the borrowing limit on Uncle Sam’s credit card. And ethanol is a small part of that debate. The Senate this month passed a measure that would end a 45-cent per gallon tax credit to U.S. ethanol refiners and a 54-cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. The measure -- pushed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.-- would save the U.S. about $6 billion a year. Allen applauded the legislation, which still faces a difficult route through Congress. "I have long maintained our biofuel mandates have become unrealistic and drive up the cost of our food and feed," Allen wrote in a June 14 campaign blog. "I commend Senator Coburn’s amendment to end the tax breaks and subsidies for ethanol." Bill Riggs, Allen’s campaign press secretary, said the candidate stopped supporting ethanol subsidies when Congress passed a 2007 mandate for another dramatic increase in production of the biofuel -- from a future goal 8 billion gallons a year to a new objective of 36 billion gallons annually. At that level, Riggs said, ethanol could consume about one-third of the U.S. corn crop. Riggs said Allen’s view in 2005 was that supporting emerging ethanol technology would be a relatively small mandate. But the 2007 bill pushed food and feed prices higher, he said, and was inconsistent with the legislation Allen had supported two years earlier. Allen’s new position caught the attention of one of his opponents for the GOP nomination, Tea Party activist Jamie Radtke. She issued a news release headlined, "George Allen Flip-Flops on Ethanol." The candidate has his reasons for changing his position, but everyone agrees a change occurred. Full Flop!
| null |
George Allen
| null | null | null |
2011-06-22T12:23:35
|
2011-06-14
|
['None']
|
tron-02570
|
The history of the middle finger
|
fiction!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/pluck-yew/
| null |
miscellaneous
| null | null | null |
The history of the middle finger
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
goop-01423
|
Teri Hatcher “Broke And Homeless,”
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/teri-hatcher-broke-homeless-not-true/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Teri Hatcher NOT “Broke And Homeless,” Despite Report
|
2:19 pm, March 8, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
tron-02926
|
Larry Klayman Releases Proof of FBI Director Jim Comey Massive Cover Up
|
unproven!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/lary-klayman-proof-comey-massive-coverup/
| null |
politics
| null | null |
['2016 election', 'barack obama', 'donald trump', 'fbi']
|
Larry Klayman Releases Proof of FBI Director Jim Comey Massive Cover Up
|
Mar 27, 2017
| null |
['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation', 'Larry_Klayman']
|
pomt-09090
|
The Tampa Bay Rays' "prices have been judged the most affordable in all of professional sports."
|
mostly true
|
/florida/statements/2010/jun/24/stuart-sternberg/tampa-bay-rays-owner-says-team-most-affordable-spo/
|
When Stuart Sternberg took control of the Tampa Bay Rays, people told him that in order to improve dismal attendance at the team's games he needed to first build a winner on the field. "People said if you win, they will come,'' Sternberg said. 2008 -- 97 wins and a trip to the World Series. 2009 -- A second consecutive winnning season (just the second in franchise history). 2010 -- The second-best record in baseball through June 22nd's games. Yet attendance is still, well, dismal. The Rays are averaging a little over 22,000 people a night at Tropicana Field in 2010, which places them 10th in the 14-team American League and 23rd out of 30 in Major League Baseball. Despite a winning team. Despite a popular Saturday night concert series. And despite a cheap ticket, the Rays say. The disappointing turnstile receipts played prominently into Sternberg's announcement June 21, 2010, that the team wants to explore options for a new stadium outside St. Petersburg, specifically in Tampa and Hillsborough County. Rays officials are convinced that a new, modern ballpark constructed closer to the region's geographic center could boost attendance by 7,000 to 8,000 fans a game. "We have learned that it's not just about winning," Sternberg said. "It's not about ticket prices. And it certainly isn't about a lack of interest in this team. "Our prices have been judged the most affordable in all of professional sports. Our television ratings have grown dramatically. And our standing in the community has never been higher. Our customers are our fans. We need to be in a location that is convenient for our fans to reach. And we need to be in a place that makes us attractive to the region's businesses and community." Sternberg claims the Rays have done everything to make baseball work in downtown St. Petersburg, including cutting prices to the bottom in all of professional sports. PolitiFact Florida got a call from the bullpen to check it out. The Rays directed us to a 2009 fan survey from ESPN Magazine called the Ultimate Standings. The survey ranks teams in each professional sport (baseball, football, hockey and basketball) in eight different categories. Scores in seven of the eight categories came from 50,000 responses to ESPN.com. An eighth category -- which tried to measure wins versus revenues -- was computed by researchers at the University of Oregon. The results were then weighted to create an overall score. The Rays ranked 16th overall out of 122 professional sports teams. But that's not what we're checking. One of the individual categories was Affordability, and specifically asked fans to rate teams in terms of ticket prices, parking prices and concessions prices. According to ESPN, the Rays ranked No. 2 overall in ticket prices, No. 1 in parking prices and No. 5 in concession prices. That made the Rays the most affordable franchise in all of professional sports, according to the ESPN survey, just like Sternberg said. But we're not sure how much weight the ranking actually should hold. Take parking, where the Rays ranked first. Depending on the game, it costs anywhere from $10 to $25 to park at Tropicana Field. The New York Mets -- who ranked 111th in parking prices in the survey --charge $19 for all games. The San Diego Padres -- who ranked 108th in parking -- charge less than the Rays, between $8 and $15. The NFL's Denver Broncos charge between $20 and $30 to park and rank 68th. Parking is $18 a game for the NBA's Golden State Warriors, which somehow ranks 106th. Now, the Rays point out that if you have four people in your car you can park for free. And we'll point out that if you live in New York, Philadelphia, Boston or Washington, you'll most likely take public transportation meaning you won't have to pay for parking either. We also feel obligated to note that the four people free parking rule only applies to Sunday games and a select other few home dates. The rest of the time, the first 100 cars with four or more will park for free up to an hour before game time. Trying to consider the relative cost of tickets is even more challenging. The Rays charge a different price for the same seat depending on who they are playing and what night of the week the game is on. Baseball, of course, also has a built in advantage because teams play 81 home games a year compared to half that for hockey and basketball and just eight regular-season home games for football (Fewer games means a smaller supply of seats, which translates into higher prices). Still, for the sake of argument, let's see how much it cost to buy an outfield seat at a handful of Thursday's baseball games -- not counting those Ticketmaster fees. Rays vs. San Diego Padres -- $17 Atlanta at Chicago White Sox -- $17 Chicago Cubs at Seattle -- $32 Pittsburgh at Texas -- $30 Florida at Baltimore -- $15 Minnesota at Milwaukee -- $30 San Francisco at Houston -- $18 Of the seven games we looked at, the Rays have the second-cheapest outfield seat available. The team that has the cheapest option, the Baltimore Orioles, ranks 61st in terms of ticket pricing, according to ESPN. And the Brewers, who rank fourth in ticket pricing, have the second-most expensive ticket. Any of that make sense? Doesn't to us either. And here's the point. Sternberg accurately cites an ESPN study in saying that the Rays have been "judged the most affordable (team) in all of professional sports." But we're not sure an ESPN survey of 50,000 fans represents a true picture of the affordability of the Rays, or any of the other 121 professional sports franchises. There are so many variables when it comes to ticket pricing -- be it the opponent or the day of the week -- or parking, or concession prices that it's just hard to make a fair judgment. Because the survey is suspect, we rate Sternberg's statement Mostly True.
| null |
Stuart Sternberg
| null | null | null |
2010-06-24T14:16:56
|
2010-06-21
|
['None']
|
tron-02052
|
The Generous Gift of a Glass of Milk that Ended up Paying for Medical Care
|
truth!
|
https://www.truthorfiction.com/oneglassofmilk/
| null |
inspirational
| null | null | null |
The Generous Gift of a Glass of Milk that Ended up Paying for Medical Care
|
Mar 17, 2015
| null |
['None']
|
snes-01849
|
Both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis disavowed the Confederacy after the Civil War.
|
mixture
|
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/robert-lee-jefferson-davis-disavow-confederacy/
| null |
Uncategorized
| null |
Arturo Garcia
| null |
The Post-Civil War Lives of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis
|
22 August 2017
| null |
['Robert_E._Lee', 'Jefferson_Davis', 'Confederate_States_of_America', 'American_Civil_War']
|
goop-00366
|
Gwen Stefani “Pregnant Bride” And Marrying Blake Shelton,
|
0
|
https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-pregnant-bride-blake-shelton-marrying-false/
| null | null | null |
Shari Weiss
| null |
Gwen Stefani NOT “Pregnant Bride” And Marrying Blake Shelton, Despite Report
|
12:15 pm, August 29, 2018
| null |
['None']
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.