Austin is recognized as the safest major city in Texas, boasting an unemployment rate of less than 3% and winning the title of the top place to reside in the entire United States for two consecutive years.
Austin MayorSteve Adler, who seeks a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In anApril 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to this clue fromthat nights episodeof Jeopardy: Per Rick Perry, its the blueberry in the tomato soup. Perry, the Republican former governor,often offers the blueberry characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered Austin for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running? Is all of that true about Austin? Not all: In 2017,we found Half Truean Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that theFBI advises againstusing crime data it collects to declare one city safer than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested both that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016. Seeking mayors factual backup The morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didnt have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 safest big city in Texas statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austins jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nations best place to live. Checking Austins unemployment Our search for Austins jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the citys jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017:          SOURCE:Website,Unemployment,Texas Labor Market Information, Texas Workforce Commission (search completed April 26, 2018) Austin ranked best place to live two times in a row On April 10, 2018, U.S. Newsannouncedthat for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas;Colorado Springs, Colo.,placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents to find out what qualities they consider important in a home town. The methodology, U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--plus U.S. News rankings of the countrys high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the planet,earneda score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story says: The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median. Then again, the story says, Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax, and a low state and local tax rate. Another semi-warning in the story: Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching. Though, the story says, the metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, though temperatures have been known to drop in the winter. The story also notes: Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion. But, the story says, that can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking and biking. Our ruling Adler referred to Austin as the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running. Hizzonerwas right about Austins jobless rate of late and Austin getting named the citys best place to live two years in a row though its worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the countrys 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. This said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In August 2021, as a new wave of COVID-19 cases rose in Kentucky, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul urged Americans to resist mask mandates and other guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) related to stopping the now nearly two-year pandemic in a video posted to his Twitter account. Paul captioned his video: COVID-19 cases rose in Kentucky Rand Paul resist mask mandates We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children? Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom. As this video went viral, many Twitter users responded by posting a photograph of Paul that supposedly showed him receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. This photograph was frequently shared with captions claiming that Paul was a hypocrite, as he was urging others to "resist" the CDC while the picture supposedly showed him receiving a vaccine urged by the CDC.    The picture was taken in 2015, and shows Paul receiving a booster vaccination for Hepatitis A from a physician at the U.S. Capitol. You can read more about the benefits of a Hepatitis A vaccine on this page from the CDC.  shows Paul receiving a booster vaccination Hepatitis A vaccine The New York Times reports that Paul received this vaccine shortly after he set off an "uproar" when he seemingly made anti-vaccination comments amidst a measles outbreak. The following day, the Kentucky senator invited a New York Times reporter to go along with him as he received a vaccination. New York Times reports anti-vaccination comments From the NY Times: NY Times On Tuesday, Mr. Paul sought to clarify those comments, inviting a New York Times reporter to accompany him to the Capitol physicians office to watch him receive a hepatitis A booster vaccination. During the visit, Mr. Paul said he believed that the science was definitive on the matter and that vaccines were not harmful. It just annoys me that Im being characterized as someone whos against vaccines, he said as he rolled up his T-shirt sleeve before the shot. Thats not what I said. I said Ive heard of people whove had vaccines, and they see a temporal association and they believe that. As for the COVID-19 vaccinations, it doesn't appear that Paul ever received his vaccine. The senator tested positive for COVID-19 back in March 2020. Paul survived the ordeal and appears to have been largely asymptomatic. Afterward, Paul claimed that since he had COVID-19, there was no need for him to get the vaccine. This claim  that natural immunity provides better protection than vaccines  is disputed by the science. tested positive Paul claimed that since he had COVID-19 On Aug. 6, 2021, the American Hospitals Association publicized two recent studies from the CDC that showed those with "natural immunity" were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than those who had received vaccines.  The AHA writes: AHA writes The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released a study confirming the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines versus natural immunity, including immunity gained from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Researchers found that, among hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021, those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. CDC says the research suggests that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection. A second CDC study, published concurrently, shows the extent to which vaccines prevented COVID-19-related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. False accusations alleging protesters at confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid as part of a nefarious liberal conspiracy to block his confirmation resulted in intense harassment for two people whose images were posted online along with misleading information. Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings.The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action:Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation).Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned."These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police."Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy.Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us:Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money.Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars.RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.)The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle.A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back:Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group:I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why.I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below.During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors.She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that.Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over.We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest.  Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings. first post and forfeit The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action: website video Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018 The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."   While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation). Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned. "These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police." Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy. Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us: Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money. Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars. users Gateway Pundit Your News Wire Infowars RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.) RealClearPolitics The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle. popped up repeatedly A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back: Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation #KavanaughConfirmation  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018  On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group: authored I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why. I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below. During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors. She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over. boogeyman We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest. Schindler, Adam.  "Story Behind Kavanaugh 'Paid Protesters.'
  AdamSchindler.com.  6 September 2018. Hulse, Carl.  "A New Reality for Court Confirmations: Pandemonium, Protesters and Partisanship."
  The New York Times.  4 September 2018. Brown, Emma. "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault."
  The Washington Post  16 September 2018. Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. A supporter of an Austin mayoral candidate declared that another candidate accepts corporate donations--which would be illegal, he did not add. In a July 29, 2014, Facebook post, Eugene Sepulveda of Austin, treasurer for attorney Steve Adlers mayoral campaign, declared Adler isnt taking corp money, PAC money or bundled contributions, meaning money gathered from multiple sources by a single person. Commenting below Sepulvedas post, Austin political consultant Mark Littlefield, who supports City Council member Mike Martinez for mayor, asked: Are other candidates taking corporate money? Sepulveda replied: Mike Martinez takes corporate money. Steve wont. A Martinez backer, Jose Velasquez, asked us to check Sepulvedas claim. We wondered first if perhaps laws have changed dramatically so that Texas candidates may accept corporate donations. Not so, we were reminded, in that Texas adopted its ban on corporate donations to candidates more than a century ago. A September 2013 Texas Ethics Commissionguide for candidates for local officespecified that state law bars contributions to candidates for state and local office from labor unions and most corporations. More recently, Austin lawyer Tim Sorrells, the commissions former general counsel, advised candidates for city office in an April 2, 2014,blog post: In Texas, it is still a felony of the third degree for a corporation or labor organization to contribute directly to a candidate or a candidate committee. We asked Sepulveda, a social entreprenuer and philanthropist, to elaborate on his Facebook statement. By email, he told us: I should have said Mike was taking money from business entities. I was referring to his acceptance of contributions from LLCs as well as PACs and bundlers. LLCs are Limited Liability Companies. My bad for not being more specific, Sepulveda wrote. In another email, he said that when Velasquez asked him about the corporate claim, I used the term corporate generically, even referring him to the documents filed with the city clerk. If I'd been trying to mislead anyone, I certainly wouldn't have pointed them to the candidate-filed reports. Sepulveda, who said he made his Facebook comments as an Adler supporter and not as a spokesman for Adlers campaign, elaborated that according to a campaign-finance filing, Martinez fielded contributions from 13 businesses, which we confirmed from Martinezs July 15, 2014,campaign finance report, which showed the cited contributions ranging from $50 to $350. We noticed the business contributors included several limited liability companies, which prompted us to ask an election-law expert,Trey Trainorof Austin, if such companies can legally give to candidates for local office. By phone, Trainor said LLCs may legally make donations so long as none of their members are corporations. Also by phone, Austin lawyer Ed Shack, who said he has helped Adlers campaign, said the same. Martinez campaign spokesman Nick Hudson told us the campaign earlier confirmed from state records and by contacting each contributor that none of the LLCs giving to Martinezs effort had corporate members. Hudson agreed it would be illegal for Martinez to accept corporate donations. Meanwhile, Sepulveda replied to us that he had since posted a comment on Facebook, below his original claim, stating he should have said Martinez accepted donations from business entities including LLCs rather than corporations. It appeared the afternoon of Aug. 4, 2014. Our ruling Sepulveda said on Facebook that Martinez takes corporate donations. Thats not so. In fact, corporate donations remain forbidden and accepting such could lead to a felony charge. However, any candidate may field contributions from PACs and LLCs (so long as a donor LLC has no corporate members). This advocates claim, which he clarified on Facebook six days later, shakes out as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. An alarming photograph of a car after it was impaled by a guard rail is frequently presented as if it shows an accident that was the result of distracted driving. The most popular iterations of this rumor, such as this May 2018 Facebook post, also include a gory story about how the driver's torso was found in the car's trunk with a phone still in her hand: Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of a crash scene. However, the accompanying backstory is unsubstantiated. It appears that this photograph was first posted to Flickr by EMS Flight Crew, an international community of air medical professionals, in October 2010. That posting did not include any information about where or when this accident occurred, nor any information about what caused the crash (such as texting and driving.) We assume that the driver was alive when emergency crews first arrived on the scene, as the photograph was accompanied by a number of tags such as "air evac," "air rescue," and "life flight." Flickr Although it was originally posted and shared simply because it is an image of a shocking car accident, by 2012 it was being used to dissuade drivers from texting and driving. In fact, EMS Flight Crew may have been the first to share this photograph attached to a warning about distracted driving:   However, it doesn't appear that EMS Flight Crew is describing the cause of this specific crash. Rather, this appears to be a general warning against distracted driving. A few months prior, the same Facebook page asked users to suggest a headline for the photograph. "Don't text and drive" was one of the suggestions: prior   As there is no credible source confirming that the driver of this vehicle was texting at the time of the crash, we are highly suspect of the gory story claiming that the bisected driver was still clutching her phone when her body was recovered from the trunk of the car.  The photograph itself seems to disprove this story, as the driver's side chair is still intact.  Texting while driving is certainly a dangerous (and illegal) activity that could result in a similar car crash to the one depicted above. However, there's no evidence that this specific car accident was actually caused by a distracted driver. The story about the bisected driver clutching her phone was likely manufactured in an attempt to scare drivers from using their phones while driving. Although this story may have created with good intentions  after all, more than a quarter of car accidents in 2014 involved some form of cellphone use  this rumor is little more than unsubstantiated scarebait. 2014 We've reached out to EMS Flight Crew for more information about this crash, and will update this article if more information becomes available. One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, presidential candidate Donald Trump singled out the evangelical and religious community for their assistance in getting him nominated. They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits, he said. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away, Trump said. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans. We were curious about the issue and whether an amendment  constitutional or otherwise  prevents the practice for religious institutions. For this fact-check, we're relying largely scholarly articles in theDenver University Law Review, theCase Western Reserve Law Review,Boston College Law Review. The restriction is actually a law, not an amendment, and it isn't exclusive to religious institutions. Lyndon Johnson is best known as America's 36th president, the Texan who assumed the office when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Texas politics can be rough, and Johnson knew how to play that game. Therein lies the origin of the Johnson amendment. The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved. Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations,includinggroups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics. There was no record of any debate around the amendment. The logical argument favoring such an amendment is that those corporations qualifying for the section 501(c)(3) tax subsidy should not be permitted to directly or indirectly use that subsidy to support candidates for office, said Michael Hone in the Case Western article. However it was likely, he said, that Johnson was motivated by a desire to exact revenge on the foundation he believed supported his opponent and to prevent it and other nonprofit corporations from acting similarly in the future. Nonetheless, Subsequently it proved to have a profound effect on how thousands of tax-exempt organizations  including churches  dealt with issues relating to political campaigns, according to Patrick O'Daniel of the University of Texas School of Law in the Boston College article. Thelaw saysall such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates. Violating the restriction could result in the revocation of the organization's tax exempt status and the imposition of taxes. Nonpartisan, unbiased voter education or similar activities such as church-organized voter registration drives are allowed. Historically, that hasn't stopped some religious organizations from issuing endorsements anyway. O'Daniel has a list of examples. To cite two from 2000: Rev. Jerry Falwelltold worshippersat the Genoa Baptist Church in Ohio to vote for the Bush of your choice and We simply have to beat (Al) Gore. That same year, a pastor at a Bronx church who supported Hillary Clinton's run for the U.S. Senate at the time, substituted her opponent's name for Satan during a hymn. In the face of lackluster opposition by the Internal Revenue Service, the Democrats and Republicans . . . continue to use the literal bully pulpits of the churches to preach to the party faithful, O'Daniel wrote. Nonetheless, the threat of losing tax-exempt status persists as long as the law is in place, and politically-minded religious groups, particularly evangelicals, have regarded it as a suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion. In 2008, for example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law,according to the Pew Research Center. The GOP platform has picked up that cudgel,calling for the repealof that portion of the tax law. The Johnson amendment survived court challenges in 1983, 1990 and 2000,according to Pew. Our ruling Trump said, An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Trump is correct that the law was pushed by Johnson and that religious groups that advocate for candidates risk losing their tax exempt status. It's important to note that the prohibition is not just restricted to religious institutions. It's nonprofit charitable organizations in general. But overall, we rate the statement as True. Public employee pensions have been a hot topic in the 2014 primary race for governor because two of the Democratic candidates have had to deal with underfunded plans. During theAug. 26, 2014 Providence Journal - WPRI debatebetween Democrats Clay Pell, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, Raimondo and Taveras swapped barbs about who has administered their respective pension funds most effectively. Taveras, who got concessions from the city's unions, said the state pension fund is underperforming and paying excessive fees. Raimondo, whose changes in the state fund sparked a lawsuit that remains unresolved, countered that we have great returns with lower risk, and she fired back at Taveras. The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30-percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she said. [I] fixed a system for the long term. He made small changes and the pension system in Providence is still in crisis. (The U.S. Government Accountability Office recommends that  public pension plans should be atleast 80 percent funded.) We were curious about what the trend has been in Providence and whether the funding has gone down. We asked the Raimondo campaign for its evidence. Spokesman Eric Hyers sent us links to two documents. The first wasa Jan. 19, 2012 reportfrom Providence's pension adviser, Buck Consultants, which tracks funding going back to 1994, when the city had 57.4 percent of the pension money it needed. Since then, the overall trend has been down. The funded ratio had plummeted to 39.3 percent by the last full fiscal year Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. was in office. It had dropped to 34.1 percent by June 30, 2010, when David Cicilline, now a U.S. representative,  was in his last year. A year later, when Taveras had been in office for six months, the funded ratio had dropped to 31.94 percent. The second document was theJan. 31, 2014 valuation reportby the city's new pension adviser, Segal Consulting. It reports that as of June 30, 2013, with Taveras in office two and a half years, the funded ratio was virtually the same -- 31.39 percent. And this was after Taveras won union concessions to reduce pension costs. By comparison, the funded ratio for the state employees plan went from48.4 percentin June 2010, before Raimondo took office, to56.2 percentas of June 30, 2013 in the most recent audit. Michael D'Amico, Taveras' former director of administration who is now a budget consultant for the city, said it was a complete oversimplification to imply that the changes were small because the funded ratio didn't change significantly. The actual cost of the pension system was reduced substantially by negotiating changes such as a 10-year suspension of cost-of-living raises and the elimination of 5- and 6-percent compounded cost of living adjustments, DAmico said. We got just about as much as we possibly could have without cutting pensions, said Taveras spokesman David Ortiz. In a sense, the administration faced a choice: do we push Providence into bankruptcy to give a receiver the ability to cut pensions? The mayor believed the cost and collateral damage of pushing Rhode Islands capital city into bankruptcy was not worth extra pension savings we would have been able to pursue, Ortiz said. Said D'Amico: If we hadn't done anything, the funded ratio would have been much lower. Our ruling When Raimondo said, The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30 percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she was only off by one percentage point, according to the most recent audit of the fund. That funded ratio has not increased since Taveras was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011. But that percentage was on a downward spiral at the time, so having it stabilize at 31 percent doesn't necessarily reflect small changes, as Raimondo claimed in the debate. And the changes negotiated between Taveras and the citys unions are intended to gradually increase the funding ratio. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Claim:  Diet Coke (or Diet Pepsi) contains more calories than claimed, but the company gets away with the deception by paying a yearly fine.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] There was an old rumour that stated that a particular diet soda company (Coke I believe) paid a fine to print their cans as stating that the soda had 'just one calorie'.  According to the rumour, companies who knowingly printed misinformation on the nutritional facts of their product would have to pay a fine.  The company in question figured it could make more money by convincing people the product only had 1 calorie than it would cost to pay the fine, meaning a higher profit margin for them.  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I heard a rumor today that Diet Coke actually contains 40 calories, and the Coca-Cola company pays a huge fine to the FDA every year to keep "0 calories" on the can.  Have you heard anything of this?  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Comment: Is it true that Pepsi One is really not one calorie and that Pepsi Co. pays a fine every year for false advertising (because the calorie count is a lot higher than that)? Origins:  How long this particular belief about low-calorie sodas has been around is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it dating back to 1990. We've encountered claims of Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (which are listed as containing zero, zero, and one calories per 12-oz. can, respectively) actually containing 25, 50, 70, or 90 calories, in each case with the parent   company's paying an annual fine to continue falsely listing the beverage's caloric content.  (A can of non-diet cola typically contains about 120 calories.) The rumor associates most strongly with Diet Coke (which is known as Coca-Cola Light outside the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain).  In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place. Federal Trade Commission Act Lanham Act Common sense should also serve to rule out what the whispers say about an annual payoff.  For health reasons, many potential consumers of diet drinks have to carefully monitor what they ingest. Were the rumor true, diabetics with a love of Diet Coke, for instance, would experience glucose levels spiraling out of control. Imagine the lawsuits resulting from  that! This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria. bananas If there is the tiniest bit of truth to this rumor, it's that even though sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are advertised as having zero calories, they do have some caloric content from ingredients such as artificial sweeteners, citric acid, and caramel coloring.  However, the number of calories per can is still less than one, and FDA regulations allow any food product that contains fewer than five calories per serving to be advertised as calorie-free. Barbara "calorie countered" Mikkelson Last updated:  26 August 2013