Minnesota Vikings Open Their Stadium to Shelter the Homeless
On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo two weeks ago toured a sprawling solar panel factory the state paid to have built in Buffalo and said, I am just blown away by this facility. Cuomo returned to Buffalo on Friday, a day after U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announced bombshell corruption allegations that included bid rigging to build the plant at RiverBend for SolarCity. The criminal charges wont stop Buffalos resurgence, Cuomo said in his remarks at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo. He cited completion of the $750 million facility as a milestone in the states Buffalo Billion economic development initiative, which he said is working because the private sector believes in Buffalo again. Cuomo defended the states investments in Buffalo with a claim about the number of private jobs in the Buffalo region. Most private sector jobs in the history of Buffalo exist in Buffalo today, Cuomo said. Cuomo has devoted his time and the states resources on upstate revitalization. Is he right? Does Buffalo have more private sector jobs than ever before? Private sector jobs Neither the state nor the U.S. Department of Labor tracks the number of jobs for the city of Buffalo alone. Instead, they break the state up into regions, including the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area. The state and national labor departments both show the same numbers for private sector jobs. But information is available only back to 1990. The way job data is compiled changed in 1990, so the figures from the past 25 years can't be accurately compared with the numbers before 1990. The federal and state labor departments reported 479,500 private sector jobs in August in the Buffalo Niagara region. There were 439,000 jobs in 1990. The closest the Buffalo area came to the August jobs number before Cuomo took office was in November 2000, when the state reported 474,700 private sector jobs. Private sector jobs in June and July of this year exceeded that number, but still fell below the August number. Our ruling During Cuomos remarks in Buffalo, he said the most private sector jobs in the history of Buffalo exist in Buffalo today. Data from the federal and state labor departments back up his claim. There are more private sector jobs in Buffalo today than any other time dating back to at least 1990. The data doesnt prove his policies and economic development projects are responsible for the increase. But we rate his claim as True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a3b65649-df87-4209-b2b6-41b9c7676fd6 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective and cheaper for states to run.Under the Medicaid system the rules are set in Washington, but much of the bills are paid in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 Make Life Workspeechat a conservative think tank in Washington  Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.We looked into the claim that states are paying more for Medicaid than public education. Cantors staff told us the information came from areport, published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, that tallied where states get and spend their money.The study found that states planned to spend a total $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of the sum, 39.8 percent would come from general fund moneys that are collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds.Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses.But theres a catch to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to NASBO report. So Cantor is including as state expenses about $228 billion that Uncle Sam sends to the states for Medicaid.The picture changes if we simply examine the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay out of their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, drawing an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant No. 2, receiving an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays.Experts we spoke to didnt express a preference for one accounting method or the other.We include both methods in our report, said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. One reason weve been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. And one of the other issues is that even though its not all your money, youre still administering it.Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said most health care industry analysts use a total figure cited by Cantor, but note that it includes federal dollars.Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said his organization tracks states general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money.Our rulingCantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid come from the federal government.We rate Cantors statement True. Claim:  E-petitions urge Americans to buy/not buy Citgo brand gasoline.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations. And tell your friends. Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush." Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela  not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans. here Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty inVenezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez. So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.  Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars. So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.  Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo Gasoline Company Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience: "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government? Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government. Origins:  Dueling Citgo e-mails reached our inbox in early 2006, one urging Americans to buy only Citgo brand gasoline in order to support "Venezuela's democratic government" and avoid sending more U.S. dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, and the other urging Americans to boycott Citgo over remarks by Venezuelan president Hugo Chvez. Hugo Chvez The television incident referenced in the second message occurred on 29 January 2006, when anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan appeared on Chvez's weekly TV broadcast, following a similar recent meeting between the Venezuelan president and entertainer Harry Belafonte: Cindy Sheehan, who gained international fame when she camped outside President Bush's ranch in an anti-war protest, plans to pitch her tent again, Venezuela's president said Sunday as he urged activists worldwide to help bring down "the U.S. empire." Hugo Chvez, an arm around Sheehan's shoulders, told a group of activists that she had told him "she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch." In some of his strongest recent comments aimed at Washington, Chvez condemned the Bush administration and said his audience should work toward ending U.S. dominance. "Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chvez said, listing countries from Panama to Iraq where the U.S. military has intervened. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!" Sheehan also noted that singer and activist Harry Belafonte recently called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world," and said, "I agree with him. George Bush is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people." Hugo Chvez, the president of Venezuela, is certainly no fan of the U.S., and his trading rhetorical political barbs with U.S. government officials (and others) has been common news fodder for several years now.  (Chvez was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, and after a failed coup in 2002, he won a referendum over whether he should serve out the remainder of his term.  The war of words reached a  coup  new peak in August 2005, when Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested to viewers that the U.S. should assassinate Chvez.) Pat Robertson In 2006 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labeled Chvez a "challenge for democracy" and a danger to Latin America and announced the establishment of contacts with government officials in other South American countries for the purpose of creating a united front to oppose Venezuela. Chvez responded to Rice's comments in a television appearance by blowing her a screen kiss and announcing, "Don't mess with me, girl," as well as warning that he would consider suspending Venezuela's oil exports if the U.S. went "too far with the Venezuelan government."  (Venezuela is the fourth-largest supplier of crude oil to the U.S., sending the states about 1.5 million barrels daily.)  Chvez also denounced President George W. Bush as "the devil" in a September 2006 speech before the U.N. General Assembly and called Bush an "alcoholic" during a visit to Harlem the following day. U.S. attitudes towards President Chvez in early 2006 tended to be polarized along political lines, with one side declaring him a dangerous dictator who supported America's enemies, while the other side defended him as a democratically-elected leader who was the target of the Bush administration's enmity primarily because he dared to stand up to the U.S.  Excerpts from two U.S. newspaper Op-Ed pieces of that period illustrated this dichotomy: [Corrales, 2006] Hugo Chvez [was] elected president of Venezuela in December 1998. The lieutenant colonel had attempted a coup six years earlier. When that failed, he won power at the ballot box and is now approaching a decade in office. In that time, he has concentrated power, harassed opponents, punished reporters, persecuted civic organizations and increased state control of the economy.  [W]hen it comes to accountability and limits on presidential power, the picture grows dark. Mr. Chvez has achieved absolute power over all state institutions that might check his power. He controls the legislature, the Supreme Court, two armed forces, the gigantic state-owned oil company PDVSA  the only important source of state revenue, which comes in handy at election time  and the institution that monitors electoral rules. As if that weren't enough, a new media law allows the state to supervise media content, and a revised criminal code permits the state to imprison any citizen for showing "disrespect" toward government officials.  By compiling and posting on the Internet lists of voters and their political tendencies  including whether they signed a petition for a recall referendum in 2004  Venezuela has achieved reverse accountability. The state is watching and punishing citizens for political actions it disapproves of rather than the other way around. If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn't come close.  [Weisbrot, 2006] Venezuela is a democracy  despite the best efforts of the Bush team to use President Hugo Chvez's close relations with Cuba's Fidel Castro as evidence to the contrary. Its elections are transparent and have been certified by observers from the Organization of American States, the Carter Center and the European Union. Freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association prevail, at least as compared with the rest of the hemisphere.  In fact, most of the media remains controlled by the opposition, which attacks the government endlessly on all the major TV channels. It is the most vigorous and partisan opposition media in the hemisphere, one that has not been censored under Chvez. Like all of Latin America, Venezuela has governance problems: a weak state, limited rule of law, corruption and incompetent government. But no reputable human rights organization has alleged that Venezuela under Chvez has deteriorated with regard to civil liberties, human rights or democracy, as compared with prior governments. Nor does the country compare unfavorably on these criteria with its neighbors in the region. In Peru, the government has shut down opposition TV stations; in Colombia, union organizers are murdered with impunity. From a Latin American point of view, Venezuelans should have the right to choose their own president  even one who sometimes insults the American president  without interference from the United States. And Chvez's anger at Washington, from Latin Americans' point of view, appears justified. U.S. government documents released under our Freedom of Information Act indicate that Washington not only supported but was involved in the military coup that temporarily overthrew Venezuela's elected government in April 2002. Neither a "buycott" nor a boycott was likely to accomplish much beyond the symbolic.  In the first case, the Citgo brand (marketed by Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which has been owned by Petrleos de Venezuela,  Citgo the national oil company of Venezuela, since 1990) doesn't have nearly the capacity and presence in the U.S. to satisfy demand and wean American consumers from Middle Eastern oil supplies; in the second case, boycotting a gasoline brand over political issues is problematic for a number of reasons (not least of which is the notion that threatening not to buy gasoline from someone who is threatening not to sell it to you doesn't sound like an effective ploy for either side).   Many different oil companies buy crude oil from Venezuela, so even Americans who shun CITGO brand gasoline have no guarantee that they aren't still sending their money to that country.  And although Citgo may be owned by Petrleos de Venezuela, it is a formerly American company which is still headquartered in the U.S. (in Houston, Texas), employs 4,000 people, and supplies 14,000 independent retailers with gasoline and other petroleum products  Americans with no substantive connection to Venezuela who would be economically harmed by such an action. (Citgo also provides free or discounted heating oil to low-income communities and tribal reservations within the United States.) And, of course, in a tight oil market Citgo could likely find alternative buyers for its products far more easily than the U.S. could make up the shortfall created by a cut-off of Venezuelan oil.   As we've noted in many other articles discussing various schemes regarding where and how people should purchase gasoline, the global and fungible nature of the world oil market doesn't really provide consumers with many effective opportunities to influence political issues through their buying patterns.  articles Since the original e-petitions cited above originally appeared in early 2006, they have gone through a number of changes that added and dropped additional claims about Citgo.  In September 2006, the following addendum to one of the Citgo-related e-mails began circulating:  Friends, I asked you earlier to boycott Citgo Gas Stations in response to the actions of Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Government.  I am coming to you again and asking you to take this a step further. Many 7-11 Stores sell Citgo gas.  I ask you to boy cut these stores and notify the Southland Corp. & the store managers of your action and be sure they know that it is because they sell Citgo Gas Products. You may think this is an extreme step but Hugo & other American haters count on Americans not to have the stomach to do anything. Prove them wrong! One by one we can make a difference.  Please forward this to others if you believe in taking a stand against the thugs of our century. God Bless America! Shortly afterwards, 7-Eleven Inc. announced it was dropping Citgo Petroleum as its gasoline supplier, although the convenience store chain also stated the move was not motivated by political issues: 7-Eleven's contract with Citgo was due to expire at the end of September 2006, and the company had already made plans to market its own brand of gasoline. In October 2006, the following e-mail about Citgo and Petro Express began circulating: CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT GASOLINE SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM "CHAVEZ".... HAVE  BEGUN CHANGING THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR CIRCLE K STORES IN TEXAS & OKLAHOMA...AND POSSIBLY OTHER PLACES AS WELL, TO: "PETRO  EXPRESS" THEREFORE, DO NOT BUY FROM "PETRO EXPRESS", ...NOR CITGO....  "PETRO EXPRESS" IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY "CHAVEZ" .... Both Circle K and Petro Expressare privately-owned chains of convenience stores, the former an international property of Quebec-based Alimentation Couche-Tard, and the latter owned by The Pantry, Inc., which is headquartered in Sanford, North Carolina.  Neither chain is owned by Citgo or the Venezuela government.   Circle K Petro Express The Pantry Petro Express outlets (which the parent company has been converting to their Kangaroo Express brand) were known for selling Citgo-branded gasoline.  The Pantry stated in October 2006 that the chain would be phasing out sales of that brand by 2007, and  soon after The Pantry's acquisition of Petro Express in 2007,  the new parent company announced that gasoline sales at those outlets would be converted to Chevron's Texaco brand.  However, The Pantry's 2010 annual report indicates that Citgo is still one of their fuel suppliers, with a contract running through August 2013: acquisition As of September 30, 2010, Marathon, BP and CITGO supplied approximately 68% of our fuel purchases. On July26, 2010, we entered into a new fuel supply agreement with Marathon. Our contract with Marathon for unbranded fuel anddistillate expires on December 31, 2017, and our contract with Marathon for branded fuel and distillate expires on June 30,2013, with an option for the Company to renew until December 31, 2017. As a result of this new fuel agreement withMarathon, we now have three principal suppliers for the majority of our fuel. On September 1, 2010 we entered into aMarketer Franchise Agreement, including an Addendum to Marketer Franchise Agreement, with CITGO. Our contract withCITGO expires August 31, 2013 and our contract with BP expires September 30, 2012. It is not uncommon for independent stations and chains to switch fuel suppliers from time to time.  Occurrences of independents' dropping Citgo in favor of other suppliers are often misinterpreted by the public as attempts on Citgo's part to "switch names" in order to fool consumers into continuing to purchase Citgo gasoline. An addendum about AK-47 factories and Iranian-run oil refineries was also later appended to this piece: NEWS FLASH: Chavez is NOW getting a Russian Weapons Factory built by Putin. The RUSSIANS are building an AK-47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle  factory in Venezuela to give armament support to Communist Rebel groups throughout the Americas. Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him. It is likely only  a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles,  with a variety of warhead types aimed at: Guess Who? According to news reports, Russia's Izhevsk Mechanical Plant (IMP) has already manufactured and supplied about 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles to Venezuela under an earlier contract, and they have also signed a contract for two arms plants in Venezuela (one to produce AK-103a  and the other to produce 7.62-mm ammunition for those rifles), with construction to begin at the end of 2007 and be completed by 2010. Also in 2007, Venezuela and Iran signed a $4 billion deal to develop Ayacucho 7, a block of the lucrative Orinoco Reserve in Venezuela which is believed to hold more than 30 billion barrels of oil.  Under the deal, Iran will build four oil rigs off the shore of Venezuela by the end of the year.  Last updated:  8 January 2012    Corrales, Javier.  "Hugo Chvez Is Part Robin Hood, Part Oil Mogul, Part Electoral Wizard."   The Dallas Morning News.  12 February 2006.    Douglass, Elizabeth.  "7-Eleven Dumps Venezuela-Backed Citgo to Pump Own Brand."   Los Angeles Times.  28 September 2006  (p. C1).    Gentile, Carmen J.  "Venezuela, Iran Team Up on Oil."   United Press International.  17 July 2007.    Kirkpatrick, Christopher D.  "Petro Express Nixing Citgo Gas."   The Charlotte Observer.  17 October 2006.    Padgett, Tim.  "Chavez: 'Bush Has Called Me Worse Things.'"   Time.  22 September 2006.    Sieff, Martin.  "Defense Focus: Venezuela's Kalashnikovs."   United Press International.  15 August 2007.    Stock, Sue.  "Petro Express Stores to Get Name Change."   The Charlotte Observer.  3 February 2010.    Weisbrot, Mark.  "The Failure of Hugo-Bashing."   Los Angeles Times.  9 March 2006  (p. B13).    Associated Press.  "Chvez Hosts Peace Activist."   Miami Herald.  31 January 2006.    The Australian.  "US Brushes Off Chavez Barbs to Rice."   22 February 2006.    BBC News.  "Profile: Hugo Chavez."   13 October 2005.    Diario El Universal.  "US Calls Empty Rhetoric President Chvez' Threats of Cutting Oil Supply."   21 February 2006. In late September 2019, the anti-Muslim hate site Frontlines News published a bogus story reporting that "Muslims in Switzerland are demanding that the white cross be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it 'no longer corresponds to todays multicultural Switzerland.'" bogus story The story contains a thumbnail image of men holding up a flag and burning it.The image was not taken recently and it wasn't taken in Switzerland  in fact, the flag being burned is Danish, not Swiss. The photograph in question was taken by Agence France-Presse photographer Rizwan Tabassum in February 2006 in Karachi, Pakistan. According to the picture's caption, it depicts men burning a flag in response to outrage over cartoons in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the central figure of Islam. Generally, depicting Muhammad in images and statues is forbidden for observant Muslims.  photograph forbidden Frontlines News quotes and links to a story that was originally published by the Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim, non-profit organization that, as NBC News reported in April 2018, "promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news, some of which was amplified by a Russian troll factory" in the lead-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Gatestone Institute reported The Gatestone story cited by Frontlines News quotes only one source, Ivica Petrusic, who was the vice president of the Swiss social justice advocacy group Second@s Plus. Petrusic was quoted saying the cross should be removed from the flag to reflect a separation between church and state and the country's growing cultural diversity. Petrusic makes no mention of Muslim people making that demand. The only element of the story linking to Muslims is Gateway's unfounded assertion that Second@s "represents mostly Muslim second-generation foreigners in Switzerland." Because the image took place at a different time and in a different place than Frontlines News reported, and because the underlying story originated in 2011 from an already-unreliable source, we rate this claim "False. Przybyla, Heidi."John Bolton Presided Over Anti-Muslim Think Tank."
NBC News.23 April 2018. McManus, John."Have Pictures of Muhammad Always Been Forbidden?"
BBC.15 January 2015. As he proposed more changes to legal immigration, President Donald Trump said the United States lags other countries that admit a higher rate of migrants based on education or training. Most of the 1 million green cards awarded each year are based on a family connection to someone in the United States. Now, Trump wants to flip this so that most permits are based on skills and merit. Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit,Trump saidMay 16. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. We decided to fact-check his international comparison. The numbers mostly check out for the United States, and they are at least close for the other three countries. But context is needed, and its unclear what countries meet the high of 75% he mentioned. The White House press office did not answer our questions. A key thing to remember is that population sizes for these four countries are very different. Estimated 2017 population: United States: 326 million Canada: 37 million Australia: 25 million New Zealand: 5 million The number of people granted permanent residence includes new arrivals and those already in a country who adjust their status. Countries also use different terminology, migration categories and criteria. The term merit, for example, isnt widely used outside of U.S. discussions and could suggest that migrants who get green cards through other avenues  such as refugees or family members of U.S. citizens  dont merit the status. Migrants who get a green card through family links or other streams might have professional degrees and other skills, even if thats not the basis for their admission. Family-based immigration, as a share of their respective population, is similar in Australia, Canada and the United States,studiessay. But the United States does have a significantly lower rate of employment-based immigration. About 1.1 millionpeople became permanent residents in fiscal year 2017. About 138,000 people, or 12%, did so under an employment-based category. (Other categories include refugees and relatives of U.S. citizens.) The employment-based category included multinational executives, skilled workers and professors. A small share of those green cards went to needed unskilled workers. And more than half of the recipients were spouses and children of the primary applicants. In 2017, Canada admittedclose to 286,500permanent residents; about 159,300, or 56%, were under the economic class category. This category includes caregivers, entrepreneurs and other skilled workers. The number reflects applicants and immediate family members. Family members represent about half of the economic category in recent years, according to a nonpartisan Migration Policy Instituteanalysis. AustraliasMigration Programgrantedaround 180,200permanent residences in fiscal year 2016-17. About 124,000, or 68%, were under the skill stream designation. Less than half were the primary applicants. (Overall, Australia granted about 207,200 permanent residences that includes individuals granted residence under other programs, including humanitarian. The skill stream category is about 60% of that 207,200.) The skill stream category included points-tested skilled migrants, entrepreneurs, and workers sponsored by employers. New Zealand approved residence forclose to 48,000people in the 2016-17 fiscal year. About 29,000, or 60%, were under the skilled/business stream. New Zealands skilled/business category covers entrepreneurs, people with exceptional talents, technicians and trade workers. The majority of approvals were for the skilled migrant subcategory, and about half were the primary applicants. So none of the other countries Trump mentioned quite reach job-based admissions of 70 or 75%, as he said. His main point, though, is that the United States rate is much smaller. But that doesnt mean that Canada and Australia are more stingy on family immigration, said Daniel Griswold, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who hasstudiedthose immigration systems. Rather, its a reflection that they are far more open to employment-based immigration. The Migration Policy Institute also looked into family-migration policies in the United States, Canada, and Australia (not New Zealand.) If dependent family members who get green cards under the economic categories are reclassified as family migrants, then family admissions become the largest category in Canada, MPI said. While analyses of family migration tend to focus narrowly on migrants recorded as entering through family-sponsored channels, this is only part of the picture, MPI said. Taking the dependents of migrants who enter a country through other visa categories into consideration reveals more fully the centrality of family migration in many countries. Trump said, Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. In the United States, about 12% of immigrants get employment-based lawful permanent residence. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, residence for similar immigration categories range from 56% to 68%. For all countries, those percentages include professionals family members. If the accompanying family members are reclassified as family migrants, then Canadas family migration is greater than the economic share, a study said. Relative to its population size, the United States takes in roughly the same rate of family migrants as do Canada and Australia. Trumps statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In October 2020, a claim started to circulate social media positing that Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden said that he grew up in Section 8 housing:  This claim is based on something Biden said during an ABC News town hall on Oct. 15, 2020. But while Biden did mention Section 8 housing during this event  a reference to a section of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 that offered assistance to low-income Americans  he never said that he lived in Section 8 housing.   Section 8 housing What Biden did say was that he used to live in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing. Here's a transcript of Biden's comment from ABC News: transcript Look, this is the way every other, how do most, like my dad, he lost his job up in Scranton and it took him three years to be able  he moved down to Delaware to Claymont (inaudible), a little steel town. And sent us home to our grandpop to live with him. We finally got back, we lived in apartments. Became Section 8 housing much later, it wasn't -- it was just normal apartments. But it took him five years to be able to buy a home. Biden made this comment while he was responding to a question about why the Black community should support his bid to win the presidency. This portion of the town hall begins at the 1:24:50 mark of the following video. Biden's comment about Section 8 housing can be seen at 1:30:45.  Biden did not say that he used to live in Section 8 housing. He said that he lived in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing.  Semuels, Alana.  "How Housing Policy Is Failing America's Poor."
  The Atlantic.  24 June 2015. ABC News.  "Read the Full Transcript of Joe Biden's ABC News Town Hall."
  15 October 2020. Reuters.  "Fact Check: Biden Did Not Say He Lived in Section 8 Housing."
  19 October 2020. Bars of Irish Spring soap are marketed as a product to, you know, keep yourself clean. But according to the internet, these bars of soap have several other uses. Some websites claim that the soap keeps away mice, while others say it keeps away deer. One of the most popular assertions, however, is that Irish Spring Soap can be used to repel flies.  bars of soap One viral Facebook post shared by Tabe Paxon in July 2020 read: Has anyone else noticed how bad flies are this year? Well I googled how to keep them away and..... who knew Irish spring original scent would really work???? Im amazed lol. Easily amazed I guess. Dad and me sit on the back porch a lot and dad even had a fly swatted out here with him bc they where so bad. Hung one bar of Irish spring and shocked how quickly and well it works. Thought I would share for anyone else annoyed with the flies   The claim that Irish Spring soap repels flies has been amplified by a variety of home and gardening websites, such as grandmasthing.com, Homemaking.com, and even Buzzfeed. grandmasthing.com Homemaking.com Buzzfeed We're skeptical of this fly repellent solution for a few reasons. For starters, the sources we found pushing this claim don't provide much information as to why this works. Instead, the blogs offer vague and unsupported claims about how flies apparently don't like the smell. But that just doesn't pass the sniff test.  Second, if Colgate-Palmolive, the company that owns the Irish Spring brand, truly had their hands on an effective insect repellent, why wouldn't they market it as such? Why wouldn't they make a product specifically targeting this need? Lastly, we have not found any credible studies or experiments documenting whether hanging a bar of Irish Spring Soap effectively repelled flies. In fact, the only unofficial experiment found appeared to show the exact opposite. In June 2021, the Pine Meadows Hobby Farm, a frugal homestead in the Cascade Mountains that creates video tutorials for their YouTube page, posted a little experiment to see if Irish Spring Soap truly repelled flies. The results? The soap did not seem to have any impact on the pest problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bGa9jvK11sWe reached out to Colgate-Palmolive and the American Horticulture Society, and we will update this article if more information is made available. 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. Gov. Jerry Brown frequently touts Californias overall job growth when telling what hes called the states comeback story. He claimed recently on NBCsMeet the Pressthat California has added 2.1 million jobs in the last six or seven years. We checked the numbers and rated that claimTrue. Later in the same interview, the shows host Chuck Todd asked Brown about inland Californias struggles, leading to another claim that caught our attention: Chuck Todd:But there are parts of your state that are struggling. You have rural counties, ones that dont touch the ocean, struggling. Housing prices are up there, while jobs dont go there. Gov. Brown:The Inland Empire, the Central Valley, they have a harder time. But they, too, are experiencing tremendous job growth. Brown makes his jobs claim at about the 2:05 minute mark in the video above. Californias job growth is normally associated with coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. So, we wondered whether Brown had his facts right when he said these inland regions had really experienced tremendous job growth, too. We set out on a fact-check. Inland Empire Home to about 4.5 million people, Riverside and San Bernardino counties make up whats known as the Inland Empire, a sprawling set of communities east of Los Angeles. The economists we spoke with say Browns case for tremendous job growth here is a strong one. The regions 3.2 percent job growth rate was the fastest among the states large metro areas from February 2016 through February 2017, saidJohnHusing, chief economist for the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. During that year, it added 47,500 jobs, which was more than the 35,700 created in the Santa Clara metro area, considered the heart of Silicon Valley, Husing said. This area is a real growth engine, he added, listing construction, logistics and transportation among the growing sectors. Over the past five years, as the region has recovered from the Great Recession, it added jobs at a rate of 22.3 percent. That trailed only the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metro areas 22.7 percent rate among large metros. A spokesman for the Brown Administration cited the same statistics backing up the governors claim. Colin Strange of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce said San Bernardino is seeing job growth, but mainly in blue-collar jobs that pay about $15 per hour including fork-lift operators and truck drivers. Husing, who has studied the regions wages, said the Inland Empire has a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. He said, however, that the region is outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Central Valley The Central Valley stretches about 450 miles from Bakersfield north to Redding. It includes urban cities like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno, vast farmland and a diverse economy, making job growth trends for the overall region more complex. Areport by Stanislaus State Universityin the Central Valley city of Turlock offers some help. That report shows the 8-county San Joaquin Valley, which makes up the central and southern portions of the Central Valley, experienced a 1.56 percent job growth rate in 2016; a 1.86 percent rate in 2015 and 1.80 percent in 2014. Those averages trailed the states overall job growth average, which measured 3 percent in 2015 and about 2 percent last year. But it beat the 8-county regions 1.23 percent historical average job growth rate. SOURCE: Stanislaus State University, College of Business Administration,2016 Business Forecast Report,Volume VI, Issue 1 Within its own limits, the Valley has consistently grown. But it hasnt been a home run, Gokce Soydemir, an economics professor at Stanislaus State, said of job growth in that portion of the Central Valley. Jeffrey Michael, director of the University of Pacifics Center for Business and Policy Research in Stockton, added by email: Central Valley areas have also done very well in recent years with the exception of Bakersfield, where recent economic fluctuations are tightly connected to the oil industry. Bakersfields job growth rate was flat, at 0.1 percent, over the past year. Meanwhile, Sacramento, the biggest metro area in northern portion of the Central Valley, saw 1.8 percent growth over the past year, close to the statewide average. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. Economists say Brown is right about the Inland Empire. That region experienced the fastest job growth rate among the states large metro areas over the past year, and added more jobs than the Santa Clara metro area, the heart of Silicon Valley, during that period. Job growth in the Central Valley, while its outperformed its historical benchmark in much of the diverse region, hasnt kept up with the overall state average. The governors argument here needs this key clarification. In the end, we rate his overall 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. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here In June 2020, several social media users copy-pasted a piece of text across social media that claimed the Rev. Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at the funeral of George Floyd, the Black man whose death while in police custody sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice. social media     Verbatim or near-verbatim copies of this message  "Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at George Floyd's funeral"  have been shared by dozens of users on Facebook and Twitter. The earliest posting of this message that we could find was shared on June 13, a few days after Floyd's funeral service, by Brian Benedetto. That post had been shared more than 69,000 times:   However, none of the posts that we examined offered any evidence to support the claim. These posts weren't accompanied by links to news articles, quotes, TV interviews, financial records, or any other evidence to prove this accusation. It seems that this claim was simply conjured up out of thin air.  This type of post, a piece of text overlaid on a bright background, is frequently used to share unfounded claims, which are repeated over and over until some people become convinced that they are true.  Poynter wrote in 2019: Poynter When Facebook started letting users post text on top of colored backgrounds in 2016, it seemed like a fairly benign way to get people to share more personal thoughts on the platform. [...] But since then, like other formats on Facebook, the text post feature has been weaponized into an effective way to spread misinformation on the platform. Over the past few weeks, some of the most viral hoaxes on Facebook have spread in the form of text posts. They make salacious political claims without linking to any website or attaching a photo or video. They often come from regular Facebook users instead of Pages or Groups. There is no evidence to support the claim that Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at Floyd's funeral. This claim did not originate with a credible source and is not supported by any available evidence. However, we can't definitively say that Sharpton was not paid for this speaking engagement. We reached out to Sharpton and The Fountain of Praise Church in Houston for more information and will update this story if we hear back.  A video of Sharpton's eulogy can be viewed below: eulogy    Funke, Daniel.  "Forget Fake News Stories. False Text Posts Are Getting Massive Engagement on Facebook."
  Poynter.  6 March 2019. Emmrich, Stuart.  "The Most Moving Moment of Al Sharptons Eulogy for George Floyd."
  Vogue. 2 June 2020. CBS Minnesota.  "Al Sharpton To Deliver Eulogy At George Floyd Memorial Service."   2 June 2020.