The minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people.
President Barack Obama is expected to take another stab at raising the minimum wage when he delivers his State of the Union speech this week. But Republicans appear ready to stymie that proposal once again. The topic came up Jan. 26, 2014, onFox News Sundayduring a discussion between host Chris Wallace and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Isn't it reasonable that somebody who's working full time, 40 hours a week, should be able to live above the poverty line? Wallace asked McConnell, referring to Obamas calls to hike the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Yeah. But of course, the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people, McConnell replied. We have a crisis in employment among young people right now. McConnell went on to say that he believes raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and we ought to be doing things that create more jobs. But what about McConnells characterization of minimum wage workers? Is it a workforce mostly made up of young folks? Well stick to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25, since thats the topic up for debate. As it stands,21 states and the District of Columbiahave set their minimum wage higher than the federal level. A spokesman for McConnell pointed us to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, Characterizations of Minimum Wage Workers, released in February of last year. Were familiar with it, having written a couple offact-checksrecentlyon the minimum wage. According to the report, of the 75 million people making hourly wages in 2012, about 1.6 million earned the minimum wage while another 2 million earned less than $7.25 an hour. (How does one earn less than the minimum wage? Certainexceptionsare carved out for vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability.) The underlying data in the report largely backs up McConnells claim. In fact, the report even says Minimum wage workers tend to be young. How young? Only 20 percent of individuals earning hourly wages are ages 16-24, but that demographic makes up half of all individuals earning at or below the minimum wage. About a quarter of those individuals are teenagers ages 16-19 and another 25 percent are 20 to 24 years old. Broadened to include 25-29 year olds, and nearly two-thirds of all workers making at or below the minimum wage are younger than 30. The older you get, the more likely youre making more than $7.25. But McConnell also described minimum wage jobs as entry-level. Thats a characterization with which some may take an issue. Entry-level jobs typically indicate positions that, while at the bottom of the totem pole, have potential for growth. Young adults take entry-level jobs at companies hoping to climb the career ladder. And while wages are lower, there is potential to see considerable salary increases and/or career advancement. A majority of minimum-wage jobs dont really fit that description. According to the report, two-thirds are part-time, and half of all minimum wage jobs are in the leisure or hospitality industry. This includes food service jobs like waiters and cooks, hotel employees or movie theater workers, among other jobs. While many of those jobs are traditionally held by young people, they dont typically lead to careers in those industries. The same can be said for retail jobs, which make up another 16 percent of all minimum wage-or-less positions. Our ruling McConnell said the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that indeed half of all workers making a minimum wage are 16 to 24, and another 20 percent are in their late 20s or early 30s. Thats a large chunk of the minimum wage workforce, though about 30 percent of people making the minimum wage are 35 and older. McConnell also goes a bit too far in calling these jobs entry-level. For most young people, these are part-time jobs in the food or retail businesses or similar industries with little hope for career advancement. We rate McConnells statement as Mostly True.
Claim:  President Obama has proposed a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory in the U.S.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, March 2015] Obama believes voting should be MANDATORYGovernment TELLING you what to do#WakeUpAmerica    Now Obama wants a Constitutional amendment to make voting mandatoryThink about it. Why? Don't mess with my Constitution, just obey it.   Obama proposes a constitutional amendment, making voting mandatory. I wish this were fake, but it's very real.   When a right is forced upon people by law it is no longer a right, but an infringement upon their rights as free citizens #mandatoryvoting  Origins:  On 18 March 2015, President Obama appeared before the City Club of Cleveland at the Cleveland Convention Center to discuss civic issues such as middle-class economics and manufacturing.  In the course of a discussion about the how money influences elections, President Obama mentioned that mandatory voting was one strategy that could be employed to try to offset the of political spending: appeared "Other countries have mandatory voting," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. "It would be transformative if everybody voted  that would counteract money more than anything." The president continued, "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities ... There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." Although he suggested that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible "short-term" solution to the problem of money in politics, President Obama stopped short of actually calling for a constitutional amendment to bring that requirement about, saying only that in the long term it would be "fun" to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment.  Nonetheless, "news" outlets such as the Washington Times published superficial reports of the President's remarks under misleading headlines such as "Obama calls for mandatory voting in U.S." published As of November 2014, there are 11 countries that have and enforce mandatory voting rules, most notably Australia: Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924 after turnout plunged from more than 70 percent in 1919 to less than 60 percent in 1922. By contrast, recent turnout by eligible voters in U.S. presidential election years has barely cracked 60 percent; in midterm elections, it has been hovering in the low 40s. Australians who fail to vote can be fined (or, in theory, jailed for repeated no-shows). Interestingly, the mandate to vote is overwhelmingly popular, with about three-fourths of those polled supporting the requirement. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus opined in a column on the subject that it was unlikely the United States would follow Australia's example: unlikely The United States is not about to go the way of Australia. The same partisan forces that agitate for voter ID laws or less opportunity for early voting hours would block any change on the assumption that it would work to their electoral disadvantage.   Last updated:  19 March 2015    "Mandatory Voting? Obama Says It Would Be 'Transformative'."   Associated Press.  18 March 2015. Urban legendry includes numerous "windfall" tales involving fortuitous discoveries of seemingly ordinary objects that proved to be extraordinarily valuable. (See our King of the Rode article for one example.) Every now and then one of these windfall things turns out to be for real, however. In 1989, a Philadelphia financial analyst bought an old painting (a depiction of a country scene) for $4 at a flea market in Adamstown, Pennsylvania, mostly because he liked the frame. He liked it even more once he found that the painting housed a rare and valuable document. The buyer was investigating a tear in the canvas, and the frame fell apart in his hands when he attempted to detach it from the painting, leading him to discover a folded document that appeared to be an old copy of the Declaration of Independence stored between the canvas and its wood backing. After a friend who collected Civil War memorabilia advised him to have it appraised, he learned that the document was in fact a rare original Dunlap broadside, one of 500 official copies from the first printing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Only 23 similar copies were known to exist before this find, of which a mere two were privately owned:  This rare document was offered for sale by Sotheby's on 4 June 1991, and the lucky find fetched even more than had been anticipated: the $800,000 to $1.2 million estimate turned into a $2.42 million sale by the sound of the gavel: "This was a record for any printed Americana," said David Redden, the auctioneer, who is a senior vice president at Sotheby's in Manhattan. "It was far and away the highest price for historical Americana ever." The copy sold [by Sotheby's] is a crisp, clean broadside, creased along lines where it had been folded. It was printed by John Dunlap on July 4, 1776, to carry news of America's independence to the citizens of the 13 colonies. It is one of 24 known copies of the Declaration, and one of only three remaining in private hands. The previous owner, who was not identified, had told Sotheby's he bought a torn painting for $4 in a flea market in Adamstown, Pa., because he was interested in its frame. When he got home, he said, he removed the painting  a dismal country scene  and concluded the frame could not be salvaged, but found the Declaration, folded and hidden in the backing. He showed it to Sotheby's experts earlier this year. Mr. Redden said he thought the man would be "rather stunned" to learn the price it had brought. This charming story was later turned to a commercial purpose: In the autumn of 1997, SunAmerica ran television commercials based on the original finder's tale, utilizing the theme that you could either hope to get lucky like he did, or you could work out an investment plan with SunAmerica. This document was put up for sale again in June 2000, fetching an $8.14 million bid from television producer Norman Lear in an online auction. It then became the centerpiece of the Norman Lear Center's Declaration of Independence Road Trip, which took it on a three-and-a-half year cross-country tour: Declaration of Independence Road Trip The goal of the project was to bring the "People's Document" directly to all Americans  especially young people  to inspire them to see citizenship as an opportunity; to participate in civic life; to exercise their rights; and above all, to vote. As the Road Trip traveled to cities and towns across the United States, it creatively combined elements of education, entertainment, and community outreach. When TV producer and philanthropist Norman Lear learned that the Dunlap broadside would be auctioned, he saw it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring it to the American people. Lear purchased it and development of the project now known as the Declaration of Independence Road Trip began. March 2006 saw a smaller-scale repetition of this experience when Michael Sparks was browsing a thrift shop in Nashville, Tennessee, and happened upon a yellowed, shellacked, rolled-up document. Learning from a clerk that the item could be had for a mere $2.48, Sparks purchased it, took it home, and after doing some online research eventually learned that he had bought one of 200 "official copies" of the Declaration of Independence commissioned by John Quincy Adams in 1820. He spent nearly a year authenticating and conserving the document before selling it at auction in March 2007, where it fetched $477,650. After Michael Sparks' lucky find made the news in February 2007, Stan Caffy contacted reporter Mary Hance of the Tennessean and claimed that he was the one who had (unwittingly) donated the valuable document to the Music City Thrift store in March 2006: "I bought it at a yard sale in Donelson about 10 years, ago, in Donelson Hills, I think," said Stan Caffy, a pipe fitter. For years, the document hung in Stan Caffy's garage, where he works on bicycles as a hobby. He married his wife, Linda, a little more than a year ago. As part of the ritual of combining households, she pushed him to clean out the garage, which had filled up with all sorts of extraneous things. "I used to be a packrat but now I am trying to get rid of things. The best I can recall, we had a little debate about whether to keep it (the Declaration) or donate it and she won." And so it was that Linda took the Declaration along with a pile of other stuff  an antique table, a shower massage head, and a faucet  to donate to the Music City Thrift store last March. "I'm happy for the Sparks guy," Stan said. "If I still had it, it would still be hanging here in the garage and I still wouldn't know it was worth all that. It is just life. So I'm not really upset. But you can't help but feel not very smart for doing it." Blau, Eleanor.  "Declaration of Independence Sells for $2.4 Million."   The New York Times.  14 June 1991. Hance, Mary.  "Turns Out, Expensive Document Was Tossed by Guy Cleaning Out His Garage."   The Tennessean.  23 February 2007. Trillin, Calvin.  "Lucky Find."   The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  10 April 1991  (p. A11). Winship, Frederick.  "First Printing of Declaration Sold for $2.42 Million."   United Press International.  14 June 1991. Associated Press  "Declaration of Independence for $2.48."   23 February 2007. Associated Press  "Declaration Nets Lucky Owner Huge Profit."   23 March 2007. The Courier-Journal.  "$4 Painting Yields $2.42 Million Bid."   14 June 1991  (p. A2). Los Angeles Times.  "Declaration Copy Sold for $2.4 Million."   14 June 1991  (p. A19). Los Angeles Times.  "Found, Under $4 Flea-Market Art: A $1-Million Memento from 1776."   3 April 1991  (p. A14). Reuters.  "Declaration of Independence Copy Sold Online."   30 June 2000. On June 11, 2022, former Starbucks employee and self-described union organizer Laila Dalton (@lailaddaltonn) tweeted a picture of a blue garbage dumpster with the caption, "Food-share bags that Starbucks supposedly donates found in a dumpster in Grand Prairie, Texas." Starbucks employee union organizer tweeted Starbucks Texas In order to learn the facts behind the picture, we reached out with several questions for Dalton, Starbucks, and the Feeding America charity. Feeding America partners with Starbucks on what's known as FoodShare, a program that provides food for those in need. We received information from Dalton and Starbucks but are still awaiting a response from Feeding America. Starbucks Feeding America Starbucks Starbucks We have so far found no information that could conclusively identify the items seen in the dumpster in the photograph, nor did we locate details that would explain why the bags were thrown away. During our investigation, we learned that the picture was not recent. We were told that it was not captured behind a Starbucks store, something some users may have believed to be the case after glancing at the photograph. In fact, we received information from a Starbucks company spokesperson who said that local officials who represent Feeding America in Grand Prairie told them that they knew of no issues with recent daily deliveries. They also reiterated the positive impact of its FoodShare program on a national scale. Here's what we know. Starbucks Starbucks Grand Prairie According to the tweet's caption, the picture of the garbage dumpster that supposedly contained Starbucks FoodShare food donations was taken in Grand Prairie, Texas. However, little else could be gathered from just the text and photograph. Starbucks  By email, Dalton told us that she did not take the picture, but said it was captured by an "anonymous past partner" around 7 p.m. on Aug. 3, 2021. That made the photograph somewhat close to a year old by the time it was tweeted on June 11, 2022. According to Dalton, the location of the dumpster in the photograph that purportedly contained Starbucks FoodShare program donation bags was said to be at a building occupied by Penske Logistics. We reached out to Penske Logistics to see if the company handles any distribution for Starbucks in the area, or if that role belonged to a different organization located at the same address. We will update this story if we receive a response. Starbucks Starbucks The tweet received well over 200,000 total retweets and likes in just 48 hours. For those unfamiliar with Twitter, this was an extremely massive amount of people engaging with the tweet. The tweet was also shared as a screenshot on Reddit, where it received more than 18,000 points. This was likely enough positive interaction (upvotes) to land the post on the website's front page.  Twitter shared as a screenshot Reddit In 2016, Starbucks partnered with the Feeding America charity on a program called FoodShare. According to a Starbucks company spokesperson with whom we spoke over the phone, the FoodShare program's process begins when refrigerated trucks pick up the unsold food from stores. That food is then delivered so that it can be distributed by Feeding America to people in need. Starbucks FoodShare Starbucks The spokesperson added that the FoodShare program has helped to deliver more than 36.8 million meals nationally to those in need since it started six years earlier. Perhaps more important was that Starbucks said that, regarding the picture of the dumpster, people who represent Feeding America in the Grand Prairie area said that daily deliveries were being received and there were no known issues, as of early June 2022. Starbucks According to a 2021 presentation that's hosted on the Starbucks website, the company donates unsold food from "100% of its U.S. company-owned Starbucks stores." presentation Starbucks  The document also broke down the donation process into three main steps: Donate Food Instead of being thrown away, unsold food is rescued and donated to the Feeding America network of food banks and agencies to get into the hands of those who need it most. Tax Benefit Per the U.S. Enhanced Tax Deduction, companies receive a financial benefit for pounds of food donated, which can be used to fund backhaul logistics for food rescue. Backhaul Logistics Utilizing existing delivery trucks and routes to pickup food donations and return to a central site for consolidation unlocks consistent and efficient food rescue. According to the presentation, the tax benefit received by Starbucks from its FoodShare program is used to self-fund the initiative. Starbucks This story will be updated if we receive any further information about the picture of the dumpster. @lailaddaltonn. Twitter, 11 June 2022, https://twitter.com/lailaddaltonn/status/1535730614082469888. Scheiber, Noam. U.S. Labor Board Issues a Complaint against Starbucks. The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/business/economy/starbucks-union-nlrb-arizona.html. spiegel_im_spiegel. Food-Share Bags That Starbucks Supposedly Donates Found in a Dumpster in Grand Prairie, Texas. r/LateStageCapitalism via Reddit, 12 June 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/vamg8s/foodshare_bags_that_starbucks_supposedly_donates/. Starbucks Coffee Company. Starbucks Food Donation Guide. Apr. 2021, https://stories.starbucks.com/uploads/2021/09/Starbucks-US-Food-Donation-Guide.pdf. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this 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 Ohio, where union workers are a major presence and the manufacturing economy is hurting, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, called NAFTA. Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA, Obama said. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' The Clinton campaign says Obama is wrong, that Clinton was critical of NAFTA long before she started running for president. We looked into Clinton's past remarks on NAFTA and concluded that she has changed her tune, from once speaking favorably about it to now saying the agreement needs fixing. The agreement goes back to the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton ran against incumbent President George H.W. Bush. On Aug. 12 of that year, Bush finished negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would support NAFTA if elected, but would demand supplemental agreements to protect worker rights, the environment and sudden import surges. After Clinton won the presidency, his administration negotiated the side agreements and made NAFTA one of its top priorities. Vice President Al Gore memorably debated Ross Perot about NAFTA on CNN's Larry King Live. Congress approved the agreements, and it was hailed as a major political victory for the new president. As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report. Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir Living History, published in 2003: Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. During a 2004 teleconference on funding cuts for job training, Clinton was asked whether NAFTA should be revisited. She replied, I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in NAFTA. I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada, she said. Today, Clinton's campaign Web site says plainly, NAFTA was negotiated more than 14 years ago, and Hillary believes it has not lived up to its promises. At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for a trade timeout. We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA. Now, there's the issue of whether Clinton changed her mind because she was running for president. Clinton surrogates say she made remarks against NAFTA as early as March 2000 when she was running for Senate in New York. We could not confirm those remarks independently. But, as we've noted, she made pro-NAFTA remarks as late as 2003 (her autobiography) and 2004 (a teleconference). We won't say Clinton was a huge cheerleader for NAFTA, but she did speak favorably of it. And now she says it needs to be fixed. Was running for president the cause of this switch, or was it a gradual change of thinking? It's hard to say; the balance of evidence does not point to a harsh pivot point. But when we balance her previous statements against her more recent statements, we find that she has changed her sentiments when she speaks about NAFTA. We rate Obama's charge True. A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by "extreme hackers" out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you "to see what you would look like as the opposite sex" and also one that lets you see what you look like "as a bald person". DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, "What would you look like as a bald person?":   Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results:   This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Terms of Service Privacy Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: provides Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. other info In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically "hackers" (much less "extreme hackers," which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the "black market." However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. Conservative social media users circulated an image of a purported Facebook post from 17 October 2017 which they said showed Gold Star widow Myeshia Johnson accusing Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) of exploiting a presidential condolence call over the death of her husband, U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson, for political gain: circulated   The picture allegedly depicts a post from Myeshia Johnson's Facebook page dated "17 October 2017 at 3:27 p.m." saying: I want to set the record straight! I'm getting sick and tired of this so called politician using my husband as a political platform. Even buy [sic] her own words she did not hear all of the conversation she only heard part of it. This is what actually was said. "They know the risk, they know what they sign up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid" A phone call from President Donald Trump to Johnson is at the center of what has become a public dispute between Johnson and the Trump administration. But the validity of the screenshot is doubtful. While the date of the post corresponds with that of the 17 October 2017 condolence call, the time listed is actually more than an hour before the reported time of President Trump's phone call, which was 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. reported Also, the picture shows a Facebook profile bearing a square profile picture. But the social media site implemented an update in August 2017 that changed the shape of users' profile pictures in the Facebook newsfeed from square to round, as seen in this example from the Snopes.com Facebook page (top left): update shape Facebook   La David Johnson was killed while serving in Niger on 4 October 2017, in what has been described as an ambush by Islamic insurgents. Three other U.S. service members, Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, were also killed in the attack, as were four Nigerien troops. described Rep. Wilson said she was riding with the Army sergeant's widow and members of her family to receive his body when the President called, telling CNN host Don Lemon that night: telling I heard what [Trump] said because the phone was on speaker. Basically he said, "Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt." That's what he said. Wilson accused Trump of being insensitive not only to La David Johnson's family but "to the family of every soldier that has paid the ultimate price for our freedom." The sergeant's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, has corroborated Wilson's account of the phone call, saying that "President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband." corroborated President Trump responded by denying what Rep. Wilson had claimed: I didn't say what that congresswoman said. Didn't say it all. She knows it. I had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife who was  sounded like a lovely woman. Did not say what the congresswoman said, and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. On 23 October 2017, Myeshia Johnson told ABC News that Wilson was "100 percent" in her description of the phone call. She said: told The President said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway. And it made me cry cause I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said he couldn't remember my husband's name.  The only way he remembered my husband's name is because he told me he had my husband's report in front of him and that's when he actually said La David. I heard him stumblin' on, trying to remember my husband's name and that's what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country why can't you remember his name. But while President Trump suggested he had proof to support his account of events, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the call had not been not recorded. Instead, Sanders said, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly and other White House staff members were near President Trump when he phone Myeshia Johnson and heard what he said. proof told For his part, Kelly called Wilson an "empty barrel" and accused her of taking credit in 2015 for the funding of a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office in Miami, a claim that was debunked by footage of Wilson's remarks that was posted online on 20 October 2017. debunked Despite Sanders' statement that the president's conversation with Myeshia Johnson was not recorded, Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and host of a Facebook broadcast devoted to what his administration calls "real news," asserted on 20 October 2017 that she had read a transcript of the call which confirmed Trump spoke the words in question, albeit with additional context: broadcast asserted [Trump] said, "Your husband went into battle, you know, knowing that he could be injured, knowing that he could be killed, and he still did it because he loved this country, and he did it for the American people." Wilson came under additional criticism after she responded to Kelly's allegations by exclaiming that "You mean to tell me that I've become so important that the White House is following me and my words? This is amazing. That's amazing. I'll have to tell my kids that I'm a rockstar now." exclaiming Two days earlier, Rep. Wilson had issued a statement reading: statement Despite President Trump's suggestion that I have recanted my statement or misstated what he said, I stand firmly by my original account of his conversation with Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Moreover, this account has been confirmed by family members who also witnessed Mr. Trump's incredible lack of compassion and sensitivity. The Johnson family and the families of the three other soldiers who tragically lost their lives in the Niger ambush are experiencing what I am certain must feel like an unbearable loss. Rather than engage in a petty war of words with Mr. Trump, it is so much more important to embrace and support the families and honor these fallen heroes. We reached out to Rep. Wilson for comment but have not yet received a response. Sabovic, Sanela et al.  "Trump to Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson: 'He Knew What He Signed Up For.'"
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. Wilson, Frederica S.  "Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson Stands by Account of President Trump's Condolence Call to the Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson."
  18 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Facebook's Adding Text Bubbles and Round Profiles."
  CNN.  15 August 2017. Sabovic, Sanela.  "Remains of US Army Sgt. La David Johnson return to Miami."
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. CNN.  "Congresswoman Describes Trump's Call to Widow."
  17 October 2017. Gearan, Anne and Kristine Phillips.  "Fallen Soldier's Mother: 'Trump Did Disrespect My Son.'"
  The Washington Post.  18 October 2017. de Moraes, Lisa.  "White House: No Recording Of Donald Trumps Phone Call to Widow of Soldier Killed in ISIS Ambush."
  Deadline.  18 October 2017. Barszewski, Larry.  "Frederica Wilson 2015 Video Shows White House Chief of Staff John Kelly Got It Wrong."
  The Sun-Sentinel. nbsp; 20 October 2017. Holly, Jessica.  "Congresswoman Reacts to White House Statement on Call to Army's Family."
  WSVN-TV.  19 October 2017. Searcey, Dionnne et al.  "Conflicting Accounts in Niger Ambush Are Subject of Pentagon Investigation."
  The New York Times.  20 October 2017. Slattery, Denis.  "Lara Trump Says She 'Read Exactly What' President Said to Fallen Soldier's Widow Even Though There's No Transcript."
  [New York] Daily News.  20 October 2017. Nestel, M.L.  "'I Was Very Angry' at Trump, Says Myeshia Johnson, Widow of Fallen Soldier."
ABC News.  23 October 2017. Update [23 October 2017]: Updated with statement from Myeshia Johnson interview with ABC News backing up Wilson's account. Claim:   List reproduces quotes from various Hispanic leaders and newspaper articles regarding U.S. immigrants.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2006] "You old white people. It is your duty to die."HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK OUT!  Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die ... Through love of having children, we are going to take over. Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them  over ... We are here to stay." Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it." Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, "Remember 187  proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens  was the last gasp of white America in California." Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back." Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General , "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos ..." Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders. THE U.S. VS MEXICO: On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the  U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession." Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It's called affirmative action or racial privilege. The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent. Recently, a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants. Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more. DID YOU KNOW? Did you know that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals? Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? According to the L.A. Times, Orange County, California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian. How's your county doing? According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide. A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the "greatest criminal challenge the country faces." Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population. Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. "Imagine teachers in classes containing 30-40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren't fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references." WHEN I WAS YOUNG: When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breath free. They wanted to become Americans. Now too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges  affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture. HOW CAN YOU HELP?: Send copies of this letter to at least two other people, 100 would be even better. Help us get the word out.  And did you know that at the hospital these illegals cannot be turned down if they can't pay and they certainly don't pay. I saw a man on TV who took his Caucasian neighbor to an emergency room. He was slowly bleeding to death yet he had to wait for three hours for emergency treatment because the staff was busy giving prenatal treatment, cold and flu remedies, aspirin, etc., to illegals who could not speak English. They were all treated for free. When the bleeding Caucasian man's turn finally came they would not touch him until he proved that he had insurance. Because of the overwhelming number of illegals in this country, this past year alone 84 hospitals in the Los Angeles area went out of business. If you think there is something seriously sick going on in our country you had better write a letter to your congressman letting him know how you feel. Soon it will be too late so you might consider getting a head start and enrolling in a Spanish class. Origins:   With immigration reform being one of the hot-button political issues in the U.S. in early 2006, the above-quoted collection of quotes from various Hispanic leaders and newspaper articles regarding U.S. immigrants started circulating widely on the Internet.  Even though the issue was timely, this collection was actually compiled several years earlier and references statements made by Californians during 1990 (when immigration reform was also a hot-button political issue in California due to the controversial Proposition 187 ballot measure).  Audio clips of many of the quotes reproduced above were collected on a CD offered by for sale by the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR), and we include a link to the relevant clip after the discussion of each item below: immigration reform collection CCIR "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die ... Through love of having children, we are going to take over." This an excerpt from a statement by Augustin Cebada of the Brown Berets de Aztln, a paramilitary offshoot of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztln (MEChA), delivered during a Fourth of July rally held outside the Federal Building in Westwood, California, in 1996: Brown Berets We're here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we're here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children, we clean their offices, we pick the food, we do the manufacturing in the factories of L.A., we are the majority here, and we are not going to be pushed around.  We're here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we've been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and uh, none of this talk about deporting. If anybody's going to be deported it's going to be you. [SHOUTING] Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you; leave like beaten rats.  You old white people, it is your duty to die. Even their own ethicists say that they should die; that they have a duty to die. They're taking up too much space, too much air.  We are the majority in L.A. There's over seven million Mexicans in L.A. County alone. We are the majority. And you're going to see every day more and more of it, as we ... we manifest as our young people grow up, graduate from high school, go on to college and start taking over this society. Our people ... are ... the vast majority of our people are under the age of 15 years old. Right now we're already controlling those elections, whether it's through violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we are gonna take over. [Audio link] Audio link "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over ... We are here to stay." This is an excerpt from a statement made by Richard Alatorre (then a member of the Los Angeles City Council) at a Latino summit conference in Los Angeles in September 1996, about the upcoming Proposition 209 ballot measure, which sought to prohibit governmental agencies in California from "discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment ... on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" (also known as the "end of affirmative action" proposition): Proposition 209 Because our numbers are growing, they're afraid about this great mass of minorities that now live in our community. They're afraid that we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They are right, we will take them over, and we are not going to go away  we are here to stay, and we are saying 'ya basta' (enough!) and we are going to turn ... and uh, de ... not elect or re-elect people that believe that they are going to advance their political careers on the backs of immigrants and the backs of minorities. [Audio link] Audio link (NOTES: Richard Alatorre served in the California State Assembly from 1973 to 1985 and was a member of the Los Angeles City Council from 1985 to 1999. He was twice fined for violating conflict of interest provisions while a council member, and in 2001 he agreed to plead guilty to a federal criminal charge of felony tax evasion, admitting that "he failed to report to the Internal Revenue Service nearly $42,000 in cash he received from individuals attempting to influence [him] in his official duties."   Proposition 209 was passed by 54% of California voters in November 1996.)  fined tax evasion "The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." We haven't been able to verify this quote (or find the context) for this statement purportedly taken from Exclsior, a Mexico City newspaper.  Exclsior "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it." This is an excerpt from a statement by Jos Angel Gutirrez, then an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington (and a former leader of the La Raza Unida political party) at a Latino conference held at the University of California, Riverside on 14 January 1995, regarding the effects of California's recently-passed Proposition 187 ballot measure (which sought to bar illegal immigrants from public education and other social services provided by the state): Associate Professor of Political Science La Raza Unida Proposition 187 The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in this land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years, and we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights! What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male! This is our homeland. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not im-mi-grants that came from another country to another country; we are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population. [Audio link] Audio link (NOTE: We haven't been able to verify the last portion of Professor Gutirrez's statement, about white America "shitting in their pants with fear," as it does not appear in the audio clip provided. The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged within days of its passage, and most of its provisions were eventually voided.) "Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens) was the last gasp of white America in California." This is a sentence taken from a statement given by Art Torres, a former California State Assembly member and State Senator, at the UC Riverside conference referenced above:  Art Torres It is an honor to be with the new leadership of the Americas, here meeting at UC Riverside. So with 187 on the ballot, what is it going to take for our people to vote, to see us walking into the gas ovens? It is electoral power that is going to make the determination of where we go as a community. And power is not given to you; you have to take it. Remember: 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. And people say to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them' [laughter]. [Audio link] Audio link (NOTE: A month after making this statement, Art Torres was appointed Chairman of the California Democratic Party, a position he held until 2009.) "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, 'I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.'" This is an excerpt from a statement made by Gloria Molina, a Los Angeles County Supervisor, at a Southwest Voter Registration Project (SVREP) rally in June 1996: Gloria Molina SVREP Tonight Latinos across this country are coming together and they are shouting one thing: we are united. And we are united because we want to demand the kind of political respect that we should have. We demand to be counted. And what we know as well is that the big giant that they keep talking about is awakening. And he's pretty angry about what's going on. Ya basta! (enough). This community is no longer going to stand for it. Because tonight we are organizing across this country in a single mission, in a plan. We are going to organize like we've never organized before. We are going to go into our neighborhoods. We are going to register voters. We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote, and we are politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And, what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we're gonna march ... and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there's a lot of people that are saying, 'I'm gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!' And this November, we are going to remember those that stood with us and we are also going to remember those that have stood against us on the issues of immigration, on the issues of education, on the issues of health care, on the issues of the minimum wage. [Audio link] Audio link "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association, and he formerly served as California's Secretary of Health and Welfare. We don't know exactly when and where he first made his controversial statement about California's becoming a "Hispanic state," but he has confirmed he said it at least twice: during an appearance on Ray Briem's talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on Tom Leykis' talk radio show: MALDEF La Raza Lawyers appearance again Obledo: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state."  Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn't like it, they should leave.  Did you say that?"  Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe." "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." "La Reconquista" (Spanish for "the reconquest") is a term that has historically been applied to the process whereby Christians recaptured rule over the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims between 718 and 1492.  The term's appearance in the quote above reflects a modern political usage that refers to the retaking of portions of the U.S. Southwest that were once part of Mexico. The above-quoted sentence is attributed to Jos Pescador Osuna, the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles.  We haven't been able to verify when and in what context he supposedly said it, but it is widely cited as the end portion of a statement he made in 1998: "Even though I'm saying this part serious and part joking, I believe we are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos." This sentence is attributed to Fernando J. Guerra, Ph.D, an Associate Professor in the Department of Chicano Studies and Political Science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.  We haven't been able to verify when and in what context he supposedly said it, other than to note that the words are part of a longer statement also widely attributed to him:  "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos ... non-Latinos aren't watching; they aren't raising questions." Fernando J. Guerra On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession." On 15 February 1998, Mexico's national soccer team scored a 1-0 victory over the United States team in the CONCACAF Gold Cup championship game before a crowd of 91,255 at the Los Angeles Coliseum.  News accounts of the match noted that some of the large number of fans who turned out to root for the Mexican team whistled during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, booed the U.S. team, and threw debris at U.S. players: The pro-Mexican throng that filled the entire Coliseum  including areas without seats because of construction  booed the Americans and showered them with debris on several occasions. "It seemed like we were playing in Mexico City," said U.S. forward Preki, a native of Yugoslavia who gained his U.S. citizenship Oct. 25, 1996.  "When we played down there in Mexico City, the crowd wasn't as bad as it was here.  I think that was a shame. "When they were playing the United States (national) anthem, all these people were whistling (the international version of booing).  I assume all these people are living in the states.  I think they should respect the national anthem. "  Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? This absolute is not true.  In December 2005, the Mexican government extradited Raul Gomez Garca to the U.S. to stand trial in Colorado for the murder of Denver Police Officer Donald Young and the attempted murder of Officer John Bishop.   extradited According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide. The original piece skips a gear here, as the preceding statement refers to immigration from Southeast Asia, not Mexico: This information was indeed taken from the beginning of a front-page 19 May 1994 New York Times Nearly 20 years after the end of the war in Southeast Asia brought thousands of Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese refugees to this country, many still languish in poverty, giving Southeast Asians the highest rate of welfare dependency of any racial or ethnic group. More than 30 percent of all Southeast Asian households in the nation now depend on welfare for survival, according to a report on the economic diversity of Asian-Americans released Wednesday in Washington. Among some groups, like Cambodians and Laotians in California, the percentage of those on welfare reaches 77 percent. Nationwide, only 8 percent of households received public assistance in 1991.  Still, Southeast Asians account for a small fraction of the welfare budget. Of the one million here, about 300,000 receive public aid, making up about 2 percent of the total welfare population. In addition to highlighting the poverty of Southeast Asians here, the report seeks to add depth to the nation's often two-dimensional picture of Asian-Americans, who are the fastest-growing segment of the population. Their numbers have risen from 1.4 million in 1960 to more than 7 million in 1990, or 3 percent of nation's total. A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the "greatest criminal challenge the country faces." Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population. The previous statement also references Asian immigrants and appeared in a 5 December 1994 Wall Street Journal editorial about the growth of Asian criminal gangs: Triads, Asia's famous criminal gangs, may always be with us, but right now they seem to be posing special worries for the world's crime busters.  With China opening up, gangs from Hong Kong and Taiwan are re-establishing themselves on the mainland. In turn, these gangs are largely responsible for directing a massive illegal emigration of Chinese citizens to every corner of the globe. Technology and the seamlessness of the global economy seem to give these crime groups a power and impunity that they never had before.  The potential is alarming, as was made clear by speakers at the recent meeting of top law officers from around the world in Naples. Now even Beijing's Justice Minister Xiao Yang is decrying the triads as a threat to the mainland's "social stability."  In the U.S., law enforcement officials have started calling Asian mobsters the greatest criminal challenge the country faces. Taiwanese gangs, such as United Bamboo and the Four Seas Gang, are believed to mastermind the flow of refined heroin into America and other Western countries. "Operation Dry Dock," a U.S.-mounted sting, revealed that Taiwanese crooks were also behind the world-wide, $3.5 billion-a-year business of smuggling people out of the mainland. Even Moscow now has an estimated 50,000 illegal Chinese residents. (As noted in the New York Times piece cited above, in 1990 Asian-Americans comprised about 3% of the total U.S. population.) Last updated:  24 May 2010    Ramus, Richard.  "Mexico Has Road-Field Advantage."   The [Riverside] Press Enterprise.  16 February 1998  (p. D1).    The Wall Street Journal.  "Global Gangs."   5 December 1994  (p. A14). For years, readers have received unsolicited email messages about a weight loss product that purportedly appeared on the "Shark Tank" television show. Clicking the link in the email led to a product called Keto Burn. We previously reported about a similar scam involving a similarly-named product: Keto Fit. show reported The emails for Keto Burn were designed to look like a Fox News article, even though they appeared to have no affiliation with Fox News.  This article did not come from Fox News. It was fake.  It appears that a person or company used the Fox News logo without the company's permission. After clicking the link in the email, users were led through a number of questionable redirects, meaning that they were bounced from website to website before landing on a final page. On that final page was another misleading story on a website called Live Intelligence Outreach. The headline read: "50lbs in 61 Days: New No-Exercise Skinny Pill Melts Belly Fat. Why Every Judge On Shark Tank Backed This Product!" another misleading story The article showed a screenshot that appeared to be from a Fox News Channel television show.  This fake screenshot appeared on a Keto Burn pitch website.  However, this was also fake. This did not air on the Fox News Channel. One dead giveaway is that the font in the lower-third area looks amateurish. The email for the Keto Burn weight loss product claimed to come from "ABC - Shark Tank" and mentioned "Inc Magazine: Shark Tank Shocker." Clicking the link in the email led to a page that claimed: "It was the most-watched episode in 'Shark Tank' history when sisters Anna and Samantha Martin won over the 'Shark Tank' panel." page However, we found no such episode. People named Anna and Samantha Martin never appeared on the show. The scam article also claimed: "The pair are the first contestants in the shows long duration to ever receive a standing ovation and offers of investment from all panel members. The sisters said they celebrated the success with champagne and cake when the episode wrapped." The story then displayed a picture of "Shark Tank" personalities with a cake, purportedly celebrating after an episode about a weight loss product.  This photograph has nothing to do with weight loss products.  However, this picture had nothing to do with weight loss products and simply showed "Shark Tank" celebrating its 100th episode. This was confirmed on the Getty Images website. The celebration had nothing to do with Anna and Samantha Martin, Keto Burn, or any other weight loss offerings. Getty Images website In addition to "Shark Tank," the Keto Burn weight loss website also claimed the product was covered by The New York Times, "Today," O, The Oprah Magazine, People's Stylewatch, and Redbook.  These publisher logos were misleading.  However, we searched the content of all five publishers and did not find any coverage of a product called Keto Burn. This was highly misleading. In sum, a scam involving unsolicited emails, "Shark Tank," and a Keto Burn weight loss product led to an article that misled readers. We recommend readers delete such emails and avoid following links to such websites. Claim:  You can recharge your cell phone using body electricity.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2015] Is there any truth to this video?  i.e. you can charge your phoneusing body electricity?  Seems just too simple:  Origins:  According to the video displayed above (titled "Charge Your Phone with Body Electricity!"), the perpetual modern dilemma of how to ensure your cell phone is always charged or charging can be solved with just two silver coins, a piece of paper, a paper clip, and your hot, sweaty body. In terms of appealing propositions, this one features the advantages of frugality,  ease of use, and the enticing tempt of never suffering a temporarily bricked device again. Mobile users can be spared the shame of ever having to ask  virtual strangers for loans of their charger cords, if they can put aside the notion that body-charging a cell phone phone is a fairly awkward public proposition. Whether the human body can charge electronic devices (such as phones, or pacemakers, or hearing aids) is not a subject that lies entirely within the realm of science fiction. A September 2014 Newsweek article tackled the potential offered by body-based device charging, but with the caveat that the technology was nowhere near accessible just yet: Newsweek Of course, with all due respect to Voix's cool invention, talk is cheap. Piezoelectrics energy harvesters haven't yet made a dent in the real world, for the most part. On the other hand, all of the researchers and industry reps interviewed for this story agree that piezoelectrics is very much poised to become a real commercial forceperhaps within the next three to five years. The gait-powered backpacks and knee braces look likely to break through even sooner. It is perhaps telling that these two last products don't use piezoelectrics and produce somewhere around 1,000 times more electricity. But as electronic devices continue to shrink and need less juice to work, and piezoelectronic ones are tweaked to produce more power, the technologies will likely meet in the middle. While you one day might be able to harness body-generated power to charge a phone, no useful manner of doing so existed when the video in question was posted online. Moreover, its extraordinary claims about harnessing body-generated power to recharge cell phones were not proved within the video; viewers were simply informed that the trick worked without being presented with any corroborating evidence that the phone shown in the video hadn't been charged in some other fashion. Some viewers attempted to replicate the feat shown in the impressive clip with multiple devices, only to come up short:    A Quora user also opined that the body electricity claim didn't wash in terms of the mechanical process of recharging cell phones: This particular video is pure rubbish.  There are 4 contacts in a USB connector, only one of them is power.  You do not make a capacitor with a piece of paper and two "silver" coins, and anyway a capacitor is not what you need.  And you can get a few tenths of a volt if your skin is damp and if you used two different metallic coins, but that is less than a tenth of the voltage you need and less than a thousandth of the current required.  So it's wrong on so many levels it's funny. Whether or not phones could eventually be charged using body electricity, there's no evidence the video shown here managed that feat. No corroborating videos of people charging phones in such a manner have turned up, and multiple viwers have reported that the steps outlined in the video did not work to successfully recharge any cell phone.  Last updated:  27 March 2015