Accused Cascade Mall Shooter Arcan Cetin Voted as a Non-Citizen?
On 24 September 2016, Washington State resident Arcan Cetin was arrested for the 23 September 2016 shooting at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington, in which five people were killed. Afterwards,Seattle-area radio station KVI reported that Cetin had registered and voted in Washington state despite his status as a non-citizen. KVI Election officials and Washington Secretary of State, Kim Wyman, have confirmed that suspected mass murderer at The Cascade Mall in Burlington, WA, Arcan Cetin, was illegally registered to vote in the state. Cetin is an immigrant from Turkey who has resident alien status  not a U.S. citizen. KVI's John Carlson interviewed Sec. Wyman about this revelation and tried to find answers about who has the authority under Washington law to find out if voters are illegally registered. The lack of hard answers adds serious questions to the validity of Washington elections as the November 8th, 2016 election approaches. Seattle's KING-TV provided a slightly more detailed version of the story: Federal sources confirm that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary. Cetin, who immigrated to the United States from Turkey as a child, is considered a permanent resident or green card holder. While a permanent resident can apply for U.S. citizenship after a certain period of time, sources tell KING his status had not changed from green card holder to U.S. citizen. While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn't require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state's elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system. "We dont have a provision in state law that allows us either county elections officials or the Secretary of State's office to verify someones citizenship," explained Secretary of State Kim Wyman. "So, were in this place where we want to make sure were maintaining peoples confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that were giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process. Were moving forward, and that investigation is really coming out of the investigation from the shootings." The penalty for voting as a non U.S. citizen could result in five years of prison time or a $10,000, according to Secretary of State's Office. However, shortly afterwards KING reported that Cetin was in fact a naturalized citizen: KING 5 [has] learned that Arcan Cetin, the 20-year-old who killed five people at Cascade Mall on Sept. 23, is in fact a U.S. citizen. For days after the shooting, Cetin was described by local and federal law enforcement as being a permanent U.S. resident. He immigrated to the U.S. from Turkey when he was a child, after his mother married an American citizen.  A federal official told KING that further investigation revealed that Cetin is a naturalized U.S. citizen. That means he was legally registered to vote. KING's initial story questioned state officials about how Cetin could register and vote without being a citizen. The topic of legal permanent residents gaining the right to vote has been debated in Seattle and was the subject of a ballot initiative in 2015: 2015 LPRs [lawful permanent residents] contribute to society exactly the way a citizen would, says Ruchika Tulshyan, whos originally from Singapore and moved to Seattle when Amazon hired her husband. We pay taxes, we follow the law, we are held to the exact same standards financially and in all fiduciary matters, but were not given the chance to vote. The 2015 ballot initiative was largely of interest to green card holders aware of their voting restrictions. But in 2010, the New York Times reported that it wasn't uncommon for legal permanent residents to vote and "unwittingly" break the law, believing that their exercising a common civic duty was neither illegal nor discouraged. One legal permanent resident facing deportation stated that he had unknowingly broken the law by registering to vote 18 years prior, eight years after immigrating to the United States: reported The way Joseph E. Joseph tells it, he was just doing his civic duty. On his way home from work one evening in 1992, he came across a group of volunteers in Brooklyn registering people to vote. Mr. Joseph, a legal permanent resident who had immigrated from St. Kitts eight years earlier, decided it was time to sign up. He cast a ballot in that years presidential election, he said, and in every one since. His participation in American democracy came at a steep cost: The government is now trying to deport him. In the United States, only citizens are allowed to vote in national and statewide elections. And while immigrants who are granted permanent residency  a green card  enjoy an array of privileges, including the right to work, they can lose them all and be expelled from the country if the authorities discover that they have even registered to vote. Uncovering an immigrants voting history is not always hard. Many proudly acknowledge having voted when applying for American citizenship. I thought that was expected of me, said Mr. Joseph, who volunteered the information on his citizenship application in 2008 and during his naturalization interview in 2009. I felt like I was part of the democracy. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) doesn't record instances of non-citizens voting, but the Times stated that "[m]any election law experts said there was no evidence that the violations happened frequently  or at least enough to skew election results." A New York metro-area legal aid group said that at least eight green card holders faced deportation for registering to vote in the years before the 2010 article was published, having inadvertently broken the law (and jeopardized their immigration status) in most instances. A lawyer and former immigration judge concurred, stating that most legal permanent resident voters were under the impression they were allowed and encouraged to vote. A USCIS spokesman confirmed that immigrants were not apprised of the restriction when granted their green cards, possibly adding to the confusion: It really annoys me that theyre just trying to do their civic duty for no pecuniary gain at all, yet they wind up in removal proceedings, said Jeffrey N. Brauwerman, a lawyer in Coral Gables, Fla., and a former immigration judge, who has represented four immigrants that the government tried to deport for registering to vote. William G. Wright, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency did not provide specific information on voting rights when granting green cards. But he pointed out that voter registration forms explain that an applicant must be an American citizen. Immigrants and their advocates, however, say there is widespread confusion, even among native-born Americans, about who is allowed to vote. Volunteers, whether working for political parties or nonpartisan causes, sometimes give incorrect advice when registering new voters. Confusing matters, permanent residents are permitted to vote in some municipalities, though not in New York City. And elections officials around the country do not customarily verify the citizenship of newly registered voters. Arizona is the only state that requires proof of citizenship; Georgia passed a similar law, which has not taken effect. As the Times noted, both green card holders and registration volunteers are often befuddled by the intermittent ability of legal permanent residents to vote in some elections, exacerbated by a tacit assumption on the part of ineligible voters that their registrations would have been rejected by municipalities were they not permitted to participate. Complicating matters in Cetin's case was that he emigrated from Turkey as a small child and may not have been fully aware of the restrictions forbidding legal permanent residents from voting. emigrated However, Washington state voter registrations indicate that Cetin registered to vote on 27 September 2014 and subsequently participated in two elections:   Washington's Secretary of State confirmed that in addition to charges relating to the mall shooting, Arcan Cetin could face additional penalties for alleged illegal voting.  Allard, Jody et. al.  "Washington Mall Shooting Suspect Confesses to Killings."
  Washington Post.  26 September 2016. Semple, Kirk.  "For Some Immigrants, Voting Is a Criminal Act."
  The New York Times.  15 October 2010. Stuteville, Sarah.  "Local Voting Rights for Noncitizens? Advocates Say Time Has Come."
  The Seattle Times.  17 September 2015. KVI.  "Burlington WA Mall Accused Killer Was Illegally Registered to Vote."
  28 September 2016. KING-TV.  "Investigators May Probe Cascade Mall Suspect's Citizenship Status, Voting Record."
  28 September 2016.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is urging Congress to pass legislation to deal with Puerto Ricosdebt crisis, saying that without action the economy and welfare of the U.S. territory will continue to deteriorate. During an interview on the Bloomberg network, Lew said that Puerto Rican hospitals are ill-equipped to deal with the spread of the Zika virus, that schools are closing and that the failing economy is driving people out. You have broad economic stress causing people to leave the island, Lew said May 3, 2016. Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. For an island with a total population around 3.5 million, thats a serious exodus. We decided to see if Lew was right. Looking at the data Census data showsa small, but steady increase in the number of people leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland. More than 360,000 people went from Puerto Rico to the United States btween 2010 and 2014. However, the Census data isnt out for 2015, which is the year Lew was talking about. So where did Lew get that figure? The estimate comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation, which tracks passengers departing from and arriving to the island. The Treasury Department has relied on this databefore, according to department spokesperson Daniel Watson. The data show about 90,000 more people left Puerto Rico for the United States than came in. *The American Community Surveyshowing total out-migration of Puerto Rico to the US mainland **T-100Domestic Market Data(US Carriers) None of this data includes people leaving Puerto Rico for somewhere other than the United States. Islanders mostly tend to head to the mainland, however, countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic and Spain have been attracting Puerto Ricans as well. So the total number of migrants leaving the island is actually larger. Recent qualitative interviews by researchers from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies found that the people leaving Puerto Rico in the greatest numbers are nurses, paramedics, police officers, teachers, college professors and lawyers. They are often recruited and going to states with growing Hispanic populations in need of bilingual professionals. The surge in departures has led to the social media tag #yonomequito (I am not going anywhere). On Facebook this movement has been liked by70,000 people. Our ruling Lew said that almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While thats not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States. Lews statement is Mostly True. Examples: [Hepburn, 2005] Stray dogs are being skewered on hooks and dragged behind boats as live shark bait. The cruel practice takes place on French-controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, where Prince William spent two holidays. A six-month-old labrador pup was recently found ALIVE with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. The pup was found in a coastal creek and is thought to have somehow freed itself from a fishing line. But other dogs and kittens have been chomped up and swallowed by sharks. The RSPCA plans to petition the French government, demanding an end to the hideous torture.  [Collected on the Internet, September 2012] PETITION: Please help stop French Islander and Mexican fishermen using live dogs and kittens as shark bait To: The French and Mexican Governments We have to stop this PLEASE help! French Islanders using live puppies and kittens as shark bait?? Please stop this senseless abuse to innocent puppies and kittens. French Islander and Mexican fishermen are using LIVE puppies and kittens as shark bait!! No living being should have to undergo this torture and insurmountable fear! This is inhumane and must stop NOW. Together we can make a difference and let our voice be heard as ONE. Please sign this petition and please pass this along. Thank you for caring. Blessed be Currently the penalty is only 2 years and $36,000 that is far too little for such a heinous crime. We urge that you raise the penalty to 10 years in prison with NO parole and a fine of $100,000. This will hopefully act as a deterrent and will stop these horrendous acts against innocent animals. Please do the right thing and help us stop these people. Islanders on the French controlled Reunion Island have been using live dogs as shark bait. The Sun claims that a six-month-old labrador pup was recently found alive with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. It is also claimed that local fisherman have also been using kittens! Reunion Island is an overseas dpartements of France and an official region of France, giving it the same status as a province or state in other countries. The claim that live dogs (and cats) were being used as bait by shark fisherman on Runion Island (a French-controlled territory just off the coast of Southern Africa in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar) started hitting the world press in August 2005 and picked up steam in early October 2005, when it was reported by publications such as the UK's Sun (an excerpt from which is quoted at the head of this page) and Sweden's Aftonbladet, complete with a heart-rending picture of a purported "bait dog" with a large hook through its muzzle. Animal rights groups such as the RSPCA have taken up the cause of putting a stop to the horrible practice. Runion Island Sun Aftonbladet RSPCA Many observers remain skeptical of such claims, however, positing theories that range from media and animal rights groups having been taken in by a hoax to a deliberate disinformation campaign being waged by activists who seek to end the slaughter of sharks for their fins and cartilage by Indian Ocean fisherman. Arguments have flown back and forth over the practicality and plausibility (or lack thereof) of Runion Islanders fishing for sharks in the manner described. activists A 2006 Runion newspaper article acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, suggesting that although there may be some truth to the shark-fishing claim, the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by news reports in the foreign press. Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article noted that employing dogs in shark-fishing was largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used were generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals were attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats. article The French embassy in Washington, D.C., also maintained that although the practice was not unknown, its occurrence and acceptance was not nearly as prevalent as recent news reports had made it seem: Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for writing to us with your concerns. We too denounce the barbaric practices you refer to. Such acts are obviously illegal and will not be tolerated on French territory. But while we share your revulsion, we would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is in fact exceptional and isolated. It was never widespread nor traditional, but introduced by ruthless individuals, and has been strictly banned for decades now. TV reports that raised initial indignation when they were aired in France and abroad in 2005 were filmed locally in 2003 following the discovery of a mutilated dog. The last few months have seen two identical events which received heavy media coverage (one of these events was soon determined to be a false alarm). But can these vile occurrences lead us to conclude that there is an ongoing tradition of barbarism on Reunion Island? Reunion Island, a French territory and a European region, obeys the laws and regulations of the French Republic and the European Union. It respects the rule of law and does not practice inhumane ancestral practices. The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated, irresponsible parties who are being sought by the police and will be brought to justice. The authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation; one person is in custody and appeared in court on Friday September 30, 2005. All suspicions of such acts will be investigated, and animal protection organizations that have any specific information on these matters are strongly encouraged to inform French police authorities. The French minister for agriculture and fisheries, Dominique Bussereau, is fully aware of the media and public outcry regarding this issue, and has written to the French National Assembly to emphasize that several measures have been taken to strengthen already existing laws. Veterinarians have been directed to immediately report any suspicious wounds to authorities, and the police will increase their inspections of fishing and pleasure vessels. Meanwhile, a sterilization campaign, launched in 2001 to reduce the number of stray dogs and cats on the island, continues. Animal rights are an important issue in France: over half of French households have at least one pet, and France has some of the world's most stringent animal rights legislation. French law provides for the prosecution of those who are cruel to animals. Voluntary cruelty to animals is punishable by a sentence of two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine (equivalent to about $36,000). Sincerely, Press Office.Cordialement / RegardsService de Presse et d'Information / Press & Information ServiceAmbassade de France / Embassy of FranceWashington, D.C. The photo displayed at the top of this page, which has adorned several news articles and humane society-related web pages on this topic, is a frame from a 2005 video produced by the 30 Million Friends Foundation. The video purportedly documents the case of a dog that had escaped from fishermen who planned to use it as shark bait; skeptics have questioned the authenticity of the video, maintaining that it merely shows the aftermath of an accidental entanglement that has been mistakenly or deceptively misused for publicity's sake. video A similar video purporting to document the practice using kittens as shark bait appears to be a hoax, intercutting shots of kittens' being dunked in water and dangled from wires with unrelated footage of ocean fishing activity:  Hepburn, Ian.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait.
 The Sun. 1 October 2005. Mott, Maryann.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait on French Island.
 National Geographic News. 19 October 2005. Aftonbladet. Valpen Skulle Bli Hajmat.
  2 October 2005. Clicanoo. Lhomme, Le Meilleur Ennemi du Chien.
  30 September 2005. In April 2020, a coupon purporting to offer $250 in merchandise from the Kohl's department store circulated in Facebook posts directing viewers to click on a survey question:    This was a scam. Such efforts that trick viewers by offering free goods or money are long-standing. Kohl's is also a frequent target of such scams, but this fraud can target any business, from airlines to beer makers. A good rule of thumb to follow: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. also frequent any airlines beer makers These types of viral "coupon" scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their "free" gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. Despite the latest coupon scam above, Kohl's was indeed celebrating its 57th year as a department store, as of September 2019. It opened its first store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, according to company literature. In 2016, a variation of the same type of scam circulated, offering viewers $75 off purchases. literature variation The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers WHP.  "Scam Alert: Kohl's $75 Off Coupon Is Too Good to Be True."
  24 May 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook."
  14 April 2017. Claim:  Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop.  Examples:   [Collected via Facebook, June 2015] Posted by Michelle Shel-lee Seibel on Monday, June 15, 2015 Michelle Shel-lee Seibel Monday, June 15, 2015   [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and  spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!!  If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers.  This is a new technique used by robbers.  Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. Origins:  Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets  spikes baskets  to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars.  sugar flyers drunk Our first sighting of this November 2009 warning about eggs being thrown at windshields was a 29 October 2009 YahooGroups mail list post. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of this new paragraph which blames matters on the flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target  vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we weren't able to find any such occurrences in the U.S. Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the gendarmes so assaulted experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily. Moreover, it would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately  unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. Variations:   A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby  A November 2012 version included this photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint:  Barbara "pitched battle" Mikkelson Last updated:  17 June 2015    Hoober, John.  "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash."   Lancaster New Era.  3 December 2008  (p. A1). During the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, 2011, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman touted his record on taxes. When he was governor, he said, Utah had historic tax cuts. We created a flat tax in the state of Utah, exactly what needs to happen in this country.This isnt the first time Huntsman has made that claim. Our PolitiFact team in New Hampshirechecked a similar comment Huntsmanmadeat a July 4th, 2011, house party in Belmont, N.H. At that July 4 event, Huntsman said that when he was governor, he worked with the state Legislature to create a flat tax that cut income taxes by 30 percent.Since Huntsman didnt repeat the claim that this tax changes had cut income taxes by 30 percent, we will only rate him now on the question of whether his administration created a flat tax in the state of Utah.When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how Huntsman began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005.We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens, but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states, Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005.Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years.When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent.This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most of the deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bond income or deducting from income the withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts.The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utahs new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people do. )Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit from state taxes some of what they claim as deductions and tax exemptions under the federal tax code. The credit phases out and goes away from those making very high incomes in the state.This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis.There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study.Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax.The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some minor blemishes' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch. )While we gave Huntsman a Mostly False for his previous statement, most of our downgrade stemmed from our criticism of his claim that his policies cut income taxes by 30 percent. The system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasnt a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors. But it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax -- a single rate for all income groups. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True. Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True. In March 2019, a number of social media users encountered a piece of text warning them to be extra cautious in public bathrooms because intravenous drug users purportedly were known to clean their needles by sticking them into rolls of toilet paper:   I took a HAZWOP class about 6 months ago and ever since then I always look at the toilet paper roll in a porta potty or public restroom before deciding to do my business. The instructor warned us about intravenous drug users cleaning their needles by stabbing the dirty needle into the roll of toilet paper to clean the blood off of the tip. This photograph and text was originally shared by Facebook user Gavin Aubert. The post racked up hundreds of thousands of shares, but was ultimately deleted after it attracted bots that flooded the comments section with spammy links. We managed to get in contact with Aubert's wife, who told us that her husband truly wrote the text, and that the photograph had been taken at a KFC in Federal Way, Washington.  deleted While Aubert may be relaying something he actually heard during a HAZWOPER class  Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response is a set of guidelines set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)  that does not mean that this practice is widespread. A spokesperson for OSHA told us that the organization had not heard of this practice. We received a similar response from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The Institute told us that concerned citizens should check with their local public health departments for more information, but, generally speaking, the organization had no evidence that drug users were cleaning needles by stabbing them into toilet paper rolls in public bathrooms.  A spokesperson for the Washington State Department of Health said that they were also unaware of any reports of drug users cleaning needles by sticking them into toilet paper rolls: We have never heard of this. This practice seems extremely unlikely because the tip of the needle could break off if one tried to stab it through a toilet paper roll. I'm not sure why someone would risk that if what they wanted was to use the same needle for another shot. Logically it would be much easier to wipe off the tip with some toilet paper rather than stabbing it through the roll. Here is the info on how someone would properly clean a needle/syringe. info That said, the best public health practice endorsed by CDC and the US Public Health Service is to use a new sterile needle/syringe for every injection. We reached out to the Federal Way Police Department but did not hear back by press time. As noted by the Washington Health Department, the method described in this viral Facebook post is not effective in cleaning a needle. Health officials also say drug users should never share needles as it puts them at risk of getting or transmitting disease such as hepatitis or HIV. HarmReduction.org also recommends against re-using needles in general: HarmReduction.org The only to definite way to avoid disease transmission of this sort is to never share needles, syringes, or other injection equipment. It is therefore extremely important for every injector to have his or her own set of works, and an ample supply of needles and syringes so that they never have to share or re-use their ownbut especially othersinjection equipment. Cleaning needles and syringes is a complicated process that, even if done according to the best scientific advice currently available, is not a 100% fool-proof method of avoiding harmful bacteria, viruses, and other blood-borne pathogens. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that drug users can reduce the risk of HIV by cleaning their needles in bleach, but this method still does not completely eliminate the risk. The CDC suggests that drug users find a local syringe service program (SSP) to obtain free sterile needles: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The best way to reduce the risk of getting or transmitting HIV through injection drug use is to stop injecting drugs. Talk with a counselor, doctor, or other health care provider about substance use disorder treatment, including medication-assisted treatment. To find a treatment center near you, check out the locator tools on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) or www.hiv.gov, or call 1-800-662-HELP (4357). If you continue injecting drugs, never share needles or works. Many communities have syringe services programs (SSPs) where you can get free sterile needles and syringes and safely dispose of used ones. They can also refer you to substance use disorder treatment and help you get tested for HIV and hepatitis. Contact your local health department or North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN) to find an SSP. Also, some pharmacies may sell needles without a prescription. Other things you can do to lower your risk of getting or transmitting HIV, if you continue to inject drugs, include: Cleaning used needles with bleach. This may reduce the risk of HIV but doesn't eliminate it. In short, rumors about intravenous drug users cleaning their needles by stabbing them into rolls of toilet paper in public bathrooms were based on a single, unverified Facebook post. As of this writing, we have not encountered any evidence to suggest that this practice is widespread.    Are Fentanyl Users Cleaning Needles by Poking Toilet Paper Rolls? Harm Reduction Coalition.  "A Safety Manual for Injection Drug Users."
  Retrieved 8 March 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Injection Drug Use and HIV Risk."
  Retrieved 8 March 2019. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  "Frequently Asked Questions: HAZWOPER."
  Retrieved 8 March 2019. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)."
  Retrieved 8 March 2019. Update [29 August 2019]: Added a variation to this claim concerning fentanyl specifically. Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True. A radio host recently asked Gov. Rick Scott for an update on his trademark 7-7-7 plan -- creating 700,000 jobs in seven years in seven steps. (We're trackingthat promise on the Scott-O-Meter. )Scott said Floridas economy is getting better in a lot of ways.Were doing well. Were at a three-year low on our unemployment in this state... We generated around 100,000 net jobs so far, if you look at the federal numbers, he said in the April 18, 2012,interviewwith Orlando-based station WDBO. But if you look at the state numbers, about 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now.When you look around the state, tourism is up, the home markets up, home sales are up, home prices are up. So good things are happening, but we still have 900,000 people out of work, he said.What stuck out to us is his claim that 230,000 fewer people receive unemployment benefits than when he took office 15 months ago. That sounds like a drastic decrease, which Scott is taking credit for and in turn using as evidence that the states economy is improving.A spokeswoman with the states Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that manages the unemployment compensation program, responded to our request about Scotts claim. Spokeswoman Nancy Blum said the number of people receiving unemployment compensation dropped from 561,736 on Jan. 31, 2011, to 345,052 on March 31, 2012. Thats a total decline of 216,684.Thats pretty close to about 230,000, which is the number Scott offered.Whether Scott is right to take credit for the decline -- and whether that is translating to a better Florida economy -- is more complicated.In 2011 and 2012, Scott and Florida lawmakers made a series of changes to the states unemployment compensation program that generally make it harder for people to receive benefits.Among them: Meanwhile, businesses got tax breaks. A 2012 bill reduces unemployment compensation taxes for businesses by at least $50 per employee, with savings of $276 million the first year.The Miami Workers Center asked the U.S. Department of Labors civil rights division to investigate Floridas unemployment compensation system over allegations that these changes act as barriers to people who deserve checks but cant get them for lack of computer access or reading skills. A Labor department spokesman told us the investigation is ongoing.The governors number in and of itself does not demonstrate any kind of economic recovery in Florida, said Valory Greenfield, staff attorney for Florida Legal Services, which represents the workers center. What it tells me based on our experience working with claimants is that fewer people who are potentially eligible are getting into the program.In fact, since August 2011 the department has denied 131,115 applicants for failing to comply with the new law, mostly for failing to fulfill the work search or the initial skills assessment.Those denials resulted in a $30.3 million savings. Economists said Scott's number, while accurate, isn't necessarily a great economic measure on its own. They also said it's too soon to tell if Florida's more stringent eligibility requirements play a big role in the declining number of recipients. Part of the drop-off could be attributed to people whose benefits have expired. Since December 2011, 30,600 people have exhausted all state and federal unemployment benefits, according to the department.So far I havent been able to see any hard data or evidence to quantify (either) effect, said Mekael Teshome, PNC Financial Services Group economist.Whats more relevant, Teshome said, is that jobless claims have been coming down since their peak in mid 2009, well before Scott took office. That somewhat undermines the idea that the drop is thanks to Scott. In fact, if you started counting in 2010 instead of 2011 when Scott took office, even fewer people -- 300,770 -- are receiving unemployment benefits. Some experts also pointed to the contracting size of the labor force, which helps to lower the unemployment rate but also indicates some people are no longer looking for work. About 15,000 people left the labor force from February, according to the statesMarch 2012 labor report. The 15,000-person drop in the labor force was part of the reason why the unemployment rate fall from 9.4 percent in February to 9 percent in March.Some of those are people whose benefits ran out and are now not looking for work, said Chris McCarty, director of the University of Floridas Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Some of those are retirees who have left the labor force permanently.Our rulingScotts claim that 230,000 fewer people are receiving unemployment benefits than when he entered office is pretty close to the actual drop (216,684). A couple of caveats here. The figure is not completely an indicator that the economy is improving, as Scott suggests, and is somewhat the result of a strict new state law. Also, the trend of jobless claims started falling in mid 2009, more than a year before Scott took office. That undercuts, to a point, the suggestion Scott should get the credit. Scotts statement is accurate but can use some additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True. In early 2021, Snopes became aware of online posts alleging narrative plot holes in the 1994 film "Forrest Gump," which American screenwriter Eric Roth created based on a novel with the same title. One Reddit thread, for example, debated the accuracy of a scene in the latter half of the movie in which the fictional protagonist, Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, received a letter from the computer software company, Apple. Reddit thread Additionally, a webpage on My Daily Magazine  a digital hub of self-improvement tips and other content  alleged Gump's famous cross-country run (which came after the Apple letter scene) spanned 1.5 years, based on other context clues, though Gump said he ran for more than three years. My Daily Magazine Below, we analyzed the legitimacy of those claims, which together asserted that the movie that mixed fictional characters and ideas with real events contained at least two plot holes. Before we proceed, let us note here: We requested an interview with Roth by reaching out to the Los Angeles-based talent company, called Creative Artists Agency, which represents the screenwriter, according to IMDB. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update this report when or if we receive one. Creative Artists Agency One Reddit user alleged: "Iconic 'Forrest Gump' Scene Has One Ridiculous Flaw No One Noticed | Forest Gump is set in 1975 and he got a letter from Apple, which wasn't founded until 1981." In other words, the post claimed Gump received a letter from the tech company before it was established. The Reddit post referenced a montage scene roughly one hour and 40 minutes into the movie, when Gump explained his life after working with "Lt. Dan" as a member of his platoon and later as shrimp boat partners. Gump narrates the scene: scene As Gump mentions the "fruit company," movie viewers saw him opening a letter addressed to him with Apple's retro rainbow logo and the title "Apple Computer, Inc." We took the below-displayed screenshot of the moment, via Amazon's digital rental version of the film:   As you can see, the letter was dated Sept. 23, 1975. While the Reddit post claimed the computer manufacturing company was actually formed in 1981  which we learned was inaccurate based on evidence we outlined below  we pieced together events showing when, exactly, college dropouts Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the company. As a 26-year-old engineering intern at Hewlett-Packard Company, or HP, Wozniak indeed developed a plan to build his own computer in 1975, after a New-Mexico-based tech firm announced the invention of the first-ever commercially successful microcomputer, the Altair 8800, the previous year, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Wozniak Encyclopedia Britannica Smithsonian National Museum of American History Wozniak initially pitched his design to his employer, historical records show. But after it expressed no interest in his idea, he teamed up with his former high-school classmate, 21-year-old Jobs, to act on his vision by piecing together equipment in Jobs' Silicon Valley garage. "Jobs and Wozniak named their company Apple," Britannica said.  Portrait of American businessmen and engineers Steve Jobs (left) and Steve Wozniak in 1977. (Photo by Tom Munnecke/Getty Images)  So while Wozniak first acted on a design that eventually led to the company's creation in 1975, Apple Computers, Inc, was not officially established until April 1, 1976, according to an arm of The Library of Congress that documents American business and economics, called Business Reference Services. Business Reference Services The underlying assertion of the Reddit post's claim was accurate: Jobs and Wozniak founded Apple after the date of Gump's letter. Additionally, Apple did not launch an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock  which would have hypothetically allowed Lt. Dan to invest his and Gump's money in the tech company until December 12, 1980, according to EDN, a trade magazine for electrical design and engineering news. EDN "The shares sold out almost immediately and the IPO generated more capital than any IPO since Ford Motor Company in 1956," the magazine reported. "Instantly, about 300 millionaires were created, some 40 of which were Apple employees and investors." In sum, since the letter supposedly depicting Gump's stock investment in Apple was dated in fall 1975, and the fact that Jobs and Wozniak did not officially launch the company until the following spring and allowed public shareholding years after that, it was true to say the movie scene included a narrative plot hole. The original "Forrest Gump" novel by Vietnam veteran Winston Groom, which was published about eight years before the movie's release, did not reference Apple or "some kind of fruit company" in its storyline, based on our keyword search of the text. Winston Groom, In an October 2020 slideshow of "Interesting Facts About Forrest Gump," My Daily Magazine alleged of a roughly seven-minute sequence in the movie, depicting the long run by Gump: alleged seven-minute sequence Forrest Gump said that he was running for three years and two months. But he actually started running the day President Carter collapsed from heat in October 1, 1979, and ran until he got Jenny's letter the day President Regan's [sic] assassination attempt was all over the news. Between the first and the second event, only a year and a half had passed. Put another way, the webpage claimed Gump only ran for 1.5 years  not three years and about two and a half months, like Gump claimed in his narration of the scene  based on surrounding details of the film that depicted real historical events. (Note: Winston's novel did not include the famous cross-country run by Gump.) However, the movie's famous "run scene" began on Gump's front porch in the fictional town of Greenbow, Alabama. The character said "for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run." Within seconds, viewers saw Gump running past a business in which at least two men were watching a television news cast. The news program said in the background of Gump's narration: "President Carter, suffering from heat exhaustion, fell into the arms of ..." President Jimmy Carter indeed suffered from heat exhaustion while running a six-mile race in Maryland on Sept. 15, 1979, according to news archives obtained by Snopes. "The President was sweating excessively and had become weak and wobbly at the 4-mile point due to heat exhaustion," The New York Times reported two days later. "Carter fell to his knees and was given smelling salts." news archives reported While it was unclear whether the news anchor in in Forrest Gump was reporting on Carter's fall live or recapping the event days after it happened, the inclusion of the detail likely meant movie producers wanted viewers to believe Gump began his run in mid-September 1979. After passing the business, Gump's narration continued as images of him running past Alabama's state line to Mississippi, and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica, California, appeared on screen. He supposedly made the same multi-state trip multiple times, only stopping to sleep, eat, and use the bathroom. Then, at one point, movie viewers saw men inside a barbershop and people inside a cafe, including Gump's love interest Jenny Curran, watching TV news programs featuring Gump's run. One news anchor said he had been running for more than two years, which would put the date in mid-September 1981 or later, based on Carter's heat exhaustion episode.  By the end of the montage, when he apparently stopped running and returned to Alabama, Gump claimed, "I had run for three years, two months, 14 days and 16 hours."  Screenshot via Amazon's digital version of Forrest Gump.  The movie's next scene showed a news program playing footage of President Ronald Reagan approaching a limousine and people ducking from gunshots. "Five or six gunshots were fired by an unknown, would-be assassin," a news anchor said, as Gump listened to the broadcast. "The president was shot in the chest." That detail again referenced a real-life event, the attempted assassination of Reagan in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 1981, according to news archives. The president was leaving a hotel speaking event when gunman John Hinkley Jr. opened fire, wounding Reagan and three administration officials. the attempted assassination John Hinkley Jr. Based on back-of-the-napkin math, only one year, six months and 15 days passed between Carter's collapse and Reagan's assassination attempt, proving the underlying claim of The Daily Magazine webpage true  Gump's alleged timeframe for the run did not align with the actual timing of simultaneously-referenced historical events. According to ScreenCraft, an organization that aims to help aspiring screenwriters, cinematic storytellers should avoid such plot errors, big or small, that expose inconsistencies in characters' motivation or storylines. ScreenCraft "Even the best screenwriters make mistakes," wrote Ken Miyamoto, a ScreenCraft blogger and former Sony Pictures screenwriter. "The small ones are those that may slip by the average audience member." Ken Miyamoto