Austin, deemed the safest major city in Texas, boasts an unemployment rate of less than 3% and has been consecutively recognized as the top place to reside in the entire United States for two years in a row.
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.
In February 2021, a video went viral on TikTok that supposedly showed a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. The video, which supposedly came from the cop car's dashcam, racked up more than 26 million views within a few days of its initial posting by @kd_k97:   There are strong reasons to doubt this is a genuine video of a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. More likely, it's a staged video that was created as a sort of "morality play" asking the viewer to ponder what they would do in this situation.  While there are no explicit disclaimers labeling this footage as a scripted moment as opposed to a genuine incident captured on a police car's dashcam, there are a number of indications that this video could be more accurately captioned as the former.  For one, this "dashcam" video did not originate with a police department, a news article, or any other official source. Rather, this video first went viral on TikTok.  This is also just one part of a three-part video series. Part one showed the initial confrontation, involving a Black man being stopped and handcuffed after reports of "suspicious activity." Part two shows the handcuffed man saving the cop's life after he starts to choke. Part three shows the Black man retrieving the cuffs after saving the cop's life, giving them back to the police officer and preparing to be arrested again, before the cop decides to reward his good deed and let him go. Part one showed Part two shows Part three shows While this may be an effective way to break down and share a scripted performance, this would be an odd way to release a genuine police dashcam video.  We have not seen any news reports about this alleged incident, nor have we found any "official" versions of this video from a police department. On social media, users also noted that the officer's "costume" didn't seem authentic. For instance, he doesn't appear to be wearing a weapon and the "bullet proof vest" appears a bit flimsy.  TikTok user kd_k97 has not commented on the authenticity of the video. However, they did respond to a comment that highlighted the intended message of the video:   We reached out to KD97 for more information, and will update this article accordingly. Claim:  Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins:   With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who   have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something  right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003  the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years.  Moreover, the  Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups"  though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million  10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income  to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday  'What's wrong with curves?'  stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain.  Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate.  The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman.  The largest of the pledges  $3.75 million over five years  goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said.  The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations.  The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth.  The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization.  In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.  The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes  Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements.  Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes.  Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information:     Curves International web site  Last updated:  19 November 2006    Sources:   Carroll, Jon.  "Jon Carroll."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  20 April 2004  (p. E12).    Chan, Vera H-C.  "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women."   San Jose Mercury News.  16 April 2004.    Kennedy, John W.  "Rolling with the Curves."   Today's Christian.  January 2004  (p. 30).    Lawrence, Elana.  "Curves, Without Frills."   The Washington Post.  27 May 2003  (p. F1).    Reimer, Susan.  "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves."   The Baltimore Sun.  8 February 2004  (p. N1).    Rosen, Ruth.  "What's Wrong With Curves?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  29 April 2004  (p. B9).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   4 May 2004  (p. A2).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   13 May 2004  (p. A2). Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017. In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook taking aim at Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has actually been used by various "funny pictures" web sites for several years. funny pictures The "two wives" claim appears to play off of reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect. reports ruling According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that helps both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process. helps The agency told us: Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and therefore multiple marriages are not recognized under Canadas immigration laws. This means that a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can only immigrate with one spouse after having dissolved other marriages to convert their polygamous marriage to a monogamous one. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the [United Nations Refugee Agency] that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. As well, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canadas immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practising polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada. United Nations Refugee Agency The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency said: program, The government does not own apartments or townhouses which are then given to resettled refugees. Immigration officials also provided examples of regional average payments for refugees and their families distributed through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which can be seen below:   The agency said: Resettlement support normally includes a one-time start-up payment to assist the refugees in establishing a household in Canada, as well as monthly income support to help them get through their first year in Canada. Monthly support is provided to cover the costs of food and incidentals, shelter and transportation. This amount varies depending on the family size and is guided by the prevailing provincial social assistance rates in the province where the refugee(s) reside. Income support for most resettled refugees is provided for their first year in Canada by the federal government, private sponsors or a mix of both. When income support ends, it is normal for some refugees in need to transition to provincial or territorial social assistance support. The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces who can help them acclimate themselves after emigrating. According to the agency: provides Among other things, these service provider organizations help newcomers to find and retain employment, including referrals to assess foreign credentials. They also offer free language assessment and training to help newcomers contribute to the economy. Support Services, including child care, transportation assistance, translation, interpretation, crisis counselling and provisions for disabilities, are offered across the Settlement program to enable access to direct settlement services. The reference to immigrants' being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government. IFHP public Immigration officials noted that as of 1 April 2016, IFHP beneficiaries are also eligible for urgent dental care (meaning "conditions involving pain, infection or trauma"), and limited vision care. As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying foods, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute, or CMWI. We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview: CMWI interview When [refugees] come here, yes, they are given help by the government, but they have to start afresh. They are given some basic furniture, but they have to buy every single thing to equip themselves in a home, from a broom to pots and pans to sheets to every single thing, so the money doesn't stretch very far. With the kids going to school and needing clothing and ... school supplies, the extra food that they can get through Winnipeg Harvest is a good help to free up some money so they can actually access other necessities, pay other bills and get other things that they need. The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech: laws Under section 318, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. The term genocide is defined to mean killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on an identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about the groups physical destruction. Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. No prosecution under this provision can be undertaken without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) defines communicating to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means. Public place is defined to include any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. Statements include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs or other visible representations. IRCC also provided the following statement: The ongoing conflict in Syria has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it the most by providing refuge to the worlds most vulnerable people and has welcomed generations of newcomers who have helped us build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. Immigration from all streams provides significant benefits to Canada and to the immigrants who have come here to build their new lives. When we come together to welcome and integrate newcomers, it strengthens our communities and contributes to our countrys successit helps build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. The agency also noted that  according to preliminary findings  53 percent of privately-sponsored adult refugees living outside of Quebec by 1 March 2016 had already found employment. IRCC said the employment rate for adult refugees taking part in government assistance programs outside of the same province was around 10 percent, which it attributed to "substantially lower language skills." Javed, Noor. "GTA's secret world of polygamy." The Toronto Star. 24 May 2008. CBC News. "Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court." cbc.ca. 23 November 2011. Lee, Donna. "New food bank helps Syrian refugees as they settle in Winnipeg." CBC News. 19 September 2016. On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life  Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate.  Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937.  The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995.  pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published  in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market.  However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus  frozen, dried or concentrated  for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed  and quickly  to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers.  Jackson, Paul W.  "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality."
  Michigan Farm News.  29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith.  "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten."
  Detroit Free Press.  29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella.  "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change."
  WPBN.  27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty.  "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste."
  WXMI.  29 July 2016. Claim:  Thieves are using camera cell phones to capture credit card information.   Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Keep a watch out for people standing near you at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc., that have a cell phone in hand. With the new camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. Identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today, and this is just another example of the means that are being used. So... be aware of your surroundings.   Variations:  Some October 2004 versions are prefaced "CBS reported this type of identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today."  (If CBS had run a piece on cell phone cameras used by thieves to capture credit card numbers, it has escaped our notice. More likely, this claim was added by someone looking to infuse the mailing with a greater sense of credibility.) Origins:  Camera phones, the latest in cell phone wizardry, allow users to take pictures on the go and transmit these images by e-mail or post them to the Web. With video phone in hand, unexpected sightings of celebrities can be snared with a flick of the wrist (turning the celled into the snaparazzi), as can chance encounters with pretty girls or gorgeous sunsets. Though introduced in the USA only in 2002, camera phones have already helped solve crimes and aided in the capture of criminals when quick-thinking phone owners had the wit to turn their units on their attackers. They   are fast growing in popularity. Yet they also have a dark side, one that ultimately might be their undoing. Most who purchase such instruments have only the most innocuous of pleasures in mind  they want to be able to take and transmit pictures of places they're visiting and people they're meeting. Or they want to have something handy with which to snap photos if something hilarious plays out in front of them. However, at least some who are equipping themselves with this latest in technology are doing so for nefarious purposes. Camera phones have been banned in many public areas like swimming pools and locker rooms in the U.K. and Japan after police discovered pedophiles were using the technology to add to their child porn collections. In Japan, police have apprehended people using camera phones to take photos up the skirts of unsuspecting women in crowded trains and stores. In the U.S., some state legislatures have before them bills that would serve to ban cell phone cameras in venues where folks have an expectation of privacy, such as locker rooms and restrooms. Even without this legislation, a number of American health clubs and courthouses have barred their use on their premises.  Yet the danger posed by these instruments may not end with embarrassing or lewd photos of the unsuspecting  quite possibly such phones may be used to harvest credit card data. Information in other forms has already been purloined via camera phone, with newsstand owners in Japan complaining folks armed with such gadgets have been photographing magazine articles instead of buying the issues, thereby cutting into their business. In January 2003,  a Web-based fashion magazine used video phones to beam photos from Paris fashion shows, producing almost-live coverage of the catwalks and scooping the competition. Pictures were sent directly to the Web. We first saw the warning against camera cell phone enabled identify thieves in January 2004. Although we've yet to stumble across reports of actual incidents of theft of credit card information by this method, the warning implicit to the e-mail is valid  the ill-intentioned could indeed photograph the face of your credit card with such devices. At this time, most of the units on the market don't take very good pictures, possibly not nearly high enough quality to capture what is, after all, fairly small raised print on fairly small items. Video phone pictures aren't high-resolution, and most camera phones can't autofocus, lack onboard flash, and rely on long exposures  all limitations that conspire to make them unsuitable for data mining over someone's shoulder. However, what they (at this time) lack in clarity of image, they make up for in distance their captures can be transmitted. Unlike the cameras found secreted at ATMs, which could send their images to receivers no farther than about 200 meters away, video phones can relay what they see to the other side of the world. They are, after all, telephones. ATMs Although at this time the phones' limitations might appear to rule out the risk of your VISA or Mastercard details being harvested by camera phone-wielding thieves, the danger should not be discounted. The more expensive of these instruments take better photos, meaning they could pick off minute detail that lesser phones couldn't, so every video phone should not be judged safe to flash your plastic to.  Moreover, the technology is improving, which makes it a good bet the next generation of camera phones will transmit sharper, clearer images. In February 2005, a retail fraud investigator for one of the larger chain stores told us that while he is still unable to capture a useable image of a credit card from even the newer camera phones, he has been able to grab readable images of all account and routing info from the personal checks customers have produced at the checkout. Check writers, he says, have a tendency to "lay out" their check books on the writing counter at the registers and keep them stationary enough to obtain a clear image of all the personal information printed on the check.  He has also tested this theory with camera-equipped palm tops and has found that with the adjustable resolution he has been able to get a pretty clear picture, with zoom, from a reasonable distance away (3-5 feet). So at this point in time, while your credit card might still be secure, your personal check might not be. As for camera phones themselves, whatever their limitations or potential for misuse, unless legislated out of existence, they are likely to become the next "must have" item. We do so love our toys, after all.  Barbara "surfeit USA" Mikkelson Additional information:        Preventing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  22 July 2011    Bradley, Kim.  "Camera Phones Bug Cop; Fears It'll Be Used By Perverts."    The Toronto Sun.  26 December 2003  (p. 128).    Hanluain, Daithi.  "Forget F-Stops: These Cameras Have Area Codes."    The New York Times.  3 July 2003  (p. G1).    Ihnatko, Andy.  "Camera Phones an Idea Whose Time Shouldn't Have Come."    Chicago Sun-Times.  2 December 2003  (p. 64).    The Associated Press.  "Bill Would Ban Cell Phone Cameras from Locker Rooms."    10 January 2004. Following the arrest of Cesar Sayoc on charges that he sent mail bombs to prominent Democrats and anti-Trump media figures, the pro-Trump conspiracy contingent attempted to paint the suspect as a Democrat who posed as a Republican  innuendo suggesting that Sayocs true goals were to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump and his agenda. Representative of this claim was a 26 October 2018 Facebook meme that labeled Sayoc as a Democrat posing as a Republican and asserted he had recently put his infamous pro-Trump stickers on his van, describing those (false) claims as suspicious: meme   No evidence documents that Sayoc was a "lifelong Democrat"  all signs point to his being relatively apolitical until 2015, although it appeared he attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012. And Sayocs van had sported pro-Trump stickers since at least 2017, and it had contained pro-Trump material since at least 2015. appeared Although news reports have stated that Sayocs relatives are Democrats, Cesar Sayoc has never been registered as a Democrat. His only known voter registration listed his political affiliation as the Florida Republican Party, and it was filed two weeks before Trump won that states GOP primary. Additionally a public records request yielded documents indicating that Sayoc had attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012 but failed to complete his application in both cases: reports documents Records from the Miami-Dade County Elections Department show that on two occasions in October 2012  Oct. 9 and Oct. 26  Sayoc initiated, but didnt complete, new voter registration applications. Both times, he checked the box next to "Republican Party" as his party affiliation. On Oct. 9, 2012, he checked the box that said his was a "new registration," but it appears he left blank the answer to a question about whether hed ever been "adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting." On Oct. 26, 2012, he didnt check any of the boxes indicating the reason behind his registration application (i.e. new registration, address change, name change, party change, etc.) Near the top of that form, someone scribbled, "INCOMP," indicating it was incomplete. According to news reports, most people who interacted with Sayoc prior to 2015 stated he did not appear to be overtly political. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the New York Times that Sayoc seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case. told Daniel Lurvey represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014, and he told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc's ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayocs chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling. told The pattern appeared to have changed by 2015. Sayoc showed up at a Brevard College alumni event for his soccer team that year, where former team members stated that he quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories. Since that time, Sayoc had been an outspoken and fanatical supporter of Donald Trump and an equally outspoken opponent of Democrats online: stated On Twitter and Facebook, he railed against former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey with misspelled racial epithets, threatened former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and praised President Trump and conservative causes. His social-media feeds were an electronic version of the white van carted away by law-enforcement officials on Friday morning, which was covered in stickers praising Mr. Trump, condemning liberals and putting cross hairs over an image of Hillary Clinton. In 2015, as part of a likely effort to make a false insurance claim, Sayoc reported to police that $45,000 worth of suits and costumes he needed for his business were stolen from his van. According to the New York Times, the police report noted that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the presidents clothing brand. police report It is unclear exactly when the outside of Sayoc's van was first festooned with pro-Trump political stickers, but the van had been a common sighting in the South Florida region since at least New Year's Eve of 2017, as reported by the Sun Sentinel: reported I saw this van dozens of times. It always struck me, always unsettled me. It appeared that somebody at times was in the van, though it was hard to tell because of the windows, said David Cypkin, a documentary film producer who co-produced 2006s Cocaine Cowboys" ... Cypkin encountered the van regularly when he lived near the Shoppes at the Waterways in Aventura, where it was regularly parked. Cypkin believed someone could be living in the van, and finally, on the morning of New Years Eve 2017, he snapped a few quick pictures so he could get a better look at some of the stickers later. I had seen it there at least a year, Cypkin said. Assertions that Cesar Sayoc had lifelong Democratic political leanings or that his van was covered in stickers only immediately before his mail-bombing attempts do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. ORourke, Ciara.  "Pipe Bomb Suspect's Florida Voting Records Show Only Republican Affiliation." 
  PolitiFact.  5 November 2018. Healy, Jack et al.  "Cesar Sayoc, Mail Bombing Suspect, Found an Identity in Political Rage and Resentment." 
  The New York Times.  27 October 2018. Nelson, Steven.  "Mail Bomb Suspect Cesar Sayoc Was a 'Big Muscle Head' Stripper, Says Former Boss." 
  Washington Examiner.  26 October 2018. Sweeney, Dan.  "'I Thought He Looked Like a Shooter': Why People Took Pictures of Cesar Sayoc's Van." 
  Sun Sentinel.  26 October 2018. In late April 2016, an image began circulating on Facebook, depicting a screenshot of a survey question asking whether you've ever been in an accident resulting in your death.Early versionsof the question consisted of just ascreenshot, and often came from outside the United States: screenshot  However, as the meme gained traction in late April and early May 2016, the popular image accumulated a new detail. According tosome users, the question was an example of the purported ineptitude of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). By 6 May, thatassertion was overwhelminglycommonplace: commonplace    Verbal descriptionsof the question circulatedearlier than that, going back to mid-2015.Again, manyof those social media users were from outside the United States, often in the UK: circulated 2015 outside often UK    One survey taker captured a partial URL in her share of the perplexing question: captured    While that user didn't specify what site askedthe question, a closer look at the image revealed a web addressfor a survey company and an open tab for similar activity:    On 26 April 2016, a Twitter user claimed the question was an "actual health insurance question": An actual health insurance question pic.twitter.com/04r5f8Gti2 pic.twitter.com/04r5f8Gti2  Rabih Alameddine (@rabihalameddine) April 26, 2016 April 26, 2016 In response, other users said that the question was for quality control and originated with a specific online survey company: @rabihalameddine This is from Your-Surveys, search it, they have questions like these all the time. @rabihalameddine  StormzSR (@StormzSR) April 26, 2016 April 26, 2016  The survey question appears to have beenauthentic, and was initiallyfound at a site called Your-Surveys.com. It isprobable that initial use of the viral image was satiricallyattributed to the ACAby critics of the program, but it wasn't long before people (mostly from outside the United States)began to genuinelybelieve that the question was part of online enrollment for health insuranceunder the Affordable CareAct. An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these: filing 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Desert Classic Charities Clinton Family Foundation   3. Declaring an amount  say $1 million  as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices.  Clinton Foundation describes 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to scores of different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation): Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving.  2014 tax return However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012.  So where have all the other gifts gone? To lots of different places, is the short answer. In 2014, the Clintons gave money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000.  Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 2014 The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to whom the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency. Inside Philanthropy Charity Navigator  Callahan, David."What the Heck Does the Clinton Foundation Actually DO?"
Inside Philanthropy.23 June 2016. Callahan, David and Adeniji, Ade."The Other Clinton Foundation: A Look at Bill and Hillary's Personal Philanthropy."
Inside Philanthropy.29 July 2016.