What the 'Choosing Your COVID-19 Vaccine' Meme Gets Wrong
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to Americans in spring 2021, anti-vaccine groups attempted to frame the shots' manufacturers as untrustworthy to try to stop people from getting inoculated. COVID-19 Below is a sample of such claims  all from a single meme  that we fact-checked using reputable sources such as court records, resources distributed by the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the vaccine manufacturers' websites.   All in all, the meme stated facts about companies that have developed COVID-19 vaccines but failed to demonstrate how those histories are relevant to the safety or effectiveness of the manufacturers' solutions for ending the pandemic.   Firstly, in an attempt to persuade people against the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the meme alleged the New York-based company faced almost $5 billion in penalties for supposedly breaking laws while manufacturing or distributing unidentified products.  "Pfizer: $4.7 billion in fines for false claims, drug and medical equipment safety violations, off-label promotion, corrupt practices, kickbacks, and bribery," according to the meme. The claim was factually accurate. But its implication  that, because of prior lawsuits, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines were potentially unsafe  was unsubstantiated, a conclusion on which we elaborate below. As one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations, Pfizer's multiple subsidiaries (which produce a range of drugs, including Advil, the erectile disfunction drug Viagra, and the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor) indeed faced penalties totaling about $4.7 billion over the years, according to Good Jobs First, a left-leaning watchdog group tracking corporate subsidies. left-leaning Those cases, which originated in jurisdictions nationwide, essentially included the above-listed offenses involving all sorts of products between 2000 and 2019, according to Good Jobs First's database. above-listed offenses For instance, in 2004, the Warner-Lambert company  which Pfizer acquired four years earlier  pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the epilepsy drug Neurontin "even when scientific studies had shown it was not effective," the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement. illegally marketing statement Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million, said that it "cooperated fully with the government to resolve this matter," and stressed the alleged violations occurred before Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. agreed said Then, in 2009, the company paid the largest settlement for health care fraud to date, totaling $2.3 billion, according to the DOJ.  DOJ. In that case, the company's subsidy Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to promoting a painkiller Bextra "for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns," and paid a $1.3 billion criminal fine, the DOJ said in a statement. Bextra had been taken off the market four years earlier. statement had been taken off Additionally, Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve civil claims regarding not only Bextra but also the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug Lyrica, per the statement. Pfizer denied all of those accusations, aside from acknowledging the improper promotion of Zyvox, Reuters reported at the time. Reuters reported Shortly after reaching the historic settlement, the company's general counsel told reporters that it regretted "certain actions in the past," but was proud of the action it had taken to strengthen its internal oversight. told reporters But here's how the meme misled people: It lacked critical evidence to show how those cases against Pfizer were relevant to COVID-19 vaccines, pictured below.    It also failed to acknowledge that clinical trials have shown the vaccines to be safe and effective. In December 2020, the FDA issued what's called an "Emergency Use Authorization" that deemed a COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as one manufactured by competitor Moderna, safe and effective enough for mass production. December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization BioNTech Moderna The CDC's advisory committee on immunizations also recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, along with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) formulas. (Here's the CDC's explanation for how vaccines like Pfizer's  which uses mRNA technology  attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the coronavirus, if necessary.) CDC's advisory committee (Here's the CDC's explanation mRNA technology Early on, clinical trials showed the Pfizer vaccine 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. The company confirmed "high efficacy and no serious safety concerns" after a March 2021 follow-up study. 95% effective confirmed follow-up study Because of those results, the FDA expanded Pfizer's eligible vaccine population to include adolescents between the ages of 12 to 15 in mid-May. Also, at that time, Pfizer and Moderna were seeking the FDA's full, regular authorization for their inoculation formulas. That status, which requires at least six months of patient data, would allow the companies to begin marketing the shots. Pfizer and Moderna  full, regular authorization In other words, if or when the FDA grants the Pfizer vaccine full approval, the company "can advertise on TV and promote their products under the watchful eye of the FDA," former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told CNBC. told CNBC To conclude our research, we reached out to Pfizer's communication's department with the following questions: No one has answered our inquiry, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, we rate the claim regarding Pfizer a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. It was an accurate depiction of the company's alleged violations involving a handful of its numerous drugs over years. However, no evidence connected those offenses with COVID-19 vaccines nor showed Pfizer had made false claims about, or illegally promoted, its vaccine.  Next, in attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the meme claimed the Massachusetts-based company had tried numerous times to develop vaccines for mass production prior to the pandemic with no success. "Moderna: Has never brought a vaccine to market since its founding, despite fielding 9+ vaccine candidates, none of which made it through phase 3 clinical trials," the meme alleged. Similarly to the Pfizer allegation, the claim was rooted in truth. But the statement failed to explain how it was relevant to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, as well as erroneously implied the company's other vaccines did not reach mass distribution solely because of shortcomings in the products themselves, such as their effect on patients or alleged lack of success preventing viral outbreaks. Rather, other barriers  such as a lack of funding for research  also played a role in the pharmaceutical company's vaccine history. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna has developed nine prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology since its founding in 2010, according to the company's website. The company describes mRNA "like software for the cell" with the potential to fighting many diseases. prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology company's website like software for the cell In April 2020, before the FDA granted emergency authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, BioSpace reported: BioSpace reported So far, Moderna has conducted early trials with success on nine vaccine candidates, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and parainfluenza virus (PIV3), influenza H7N9, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Zika, Epstein-Barr, chikungunya. [...] However, the meme was accurate in claiming none of those experimental immunizations (aside from the COVID-19 vaccine) progressed past Phase II clinical trails. That's the stage after researchers test a product on an initial group of people and want to see how it affects a larger sample. (See the FDA's website for more differences between phases of clinical research, and see here for Moderna's process for developing and testing its mRNA vaccines.) test a product clinical research here for Moderna's process for Here's Moderna's visualization of its various vaccines and their development:   But, as you can see, Moderna's Influenza H7N9 vaccine was only advancing "subject to funding," negating the meme's implication that the company halted development solely due to safety concerns or ineffectiveness. Furthermore, Moderna's Cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine was the first of its kind to enter a Phase II clinical trial, showed "promising" results so far, and was scheduled to progress in 2021, The Medicine Maker reported. Studies on the company's other immunizations remained ongoing, too. Phase II clinical trial The Medicine Maker Similar to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna shot was 94% effective in preventing recipients from catching the virus. 94% effective Lastly, Snopes contacted representatives of Moderna with the following questions: Pending answers to those questions, we will update this report. In short, the meme factually stated that the COVID-19 vaccine was Moderna's first inoculation to reach mass production. However, it simultaneously implied, without evidence to substantiate the claim, that the company's other vaccines stalled due to their effects on test patients. For those reasons, we rate the claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Much like the meme's claim about Pfizer, its allegation that Johnson & Johnson was "named in hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for toxic and/or dangerous products, including drugs, shampoos, medical equipment, and asbestos-contaminated baby powder" was at least partially accurate at face value. asbestos-contaminated baby powder But the post failed to provide substantial evidence to prove how, or to what extent, that fact was relevant to the safety of the company's COVID-19 vaccine. Let us explain. In fall 2020, Johnson & Johnson indeed paid over $100 million to resolve more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming that the pharmaceutical giant's banned powder and talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, Bloomberg reported. Some 20,000 pending cases made similar accusations. Bloomberg reported Additionally, unrelated lawsuits alleged the company violated medical equipment or drug safety guidelines, among other offenses, according to Good Jobs First, the corporate accountability watchdog. For instance, one investigation concluded the company did not fully disclose the risks of devices to support women's prolapsed pelvic organs, according to The Gaurdian. Good Jobs First The Gaurdian Let us note here: The exact number of lawsuits that named the company for allegedly selling "toxic and/or dangerous products" since its founding was unknown, which meant the meme's reference to "hundreds of thousands" of cases was unsubstantiated. No violation listed in the Good Jobs First database was related to Johnson & Johnson's single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, which the FDA approved months after Pfizer's and Moderna's, in early 2021. approved Instead of using mRNA technology, the J&J shot takes the form of whats called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing, and discuss below) uses that same process. The J&J shot was about 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 from infecting recipients during clinical trials, according to the CDC. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 according to the CDC That said, J&J's immunization was not without controversy. In mid-April, mass vaccination sites in states including Georgia, Colorado, and North Carolina temporarily halted the shot's distribution after a few recipients felt dizzy, light-headed, and faint. The CDC monitored the reports and continued to recommend the shot's use. temporarily halted Then, shortly later, the CDC recommended all vaccine providers nationwide to temporarily halt giving out the J&J shot while health officials investigated a potential blood clotting issue that occurred in seven cases out of 6.8 million shots administered. recommended That pause ended on April 23, when the CDC said in a statement: said in a statement We reached out to J&J with the following questions: We will update this report when, or if, the company responds. In conclusion, we also rated the meme's statements about J&J a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. While it was a mostly factual representation of the company's alleged lawsuits over the years, nothing linked those cases with the company's COVID-19 immunization nor showed that the product included toxic or dangerous ingredients, like the meme implied. Of all of the meme's claims, the assertion about AstraZeneca was the least misleading. It was a direct reference to the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine (which is not currently in use in the U.S. and was developed in partnership with Oxford University) instead of an out-of-context fact pertaining to other pharmaceutical products. not currently "AstraZeneca: Suspended by two dozen European countries due to severe, lethal adverse reactions, like blood clots," the post alleged. lethal Yes, in spring 2021, a number of European countries (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.) temporarily suspended rollouts of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after reports of patients developing blood clots. Less than 40 cases of blood clots were reported out of the 17 million vaccine recipients, according to AstraZeneca.  Denmark Norway Iceland Bulgaria according to AstraZeneca Reputable sources, including Snopes, said "more than a dozen European countries" issued the suspension  not "two dozen," like the meme claimed. Reputable sources Snopes Additionally, the meme's use of the phrase "due to" discredited its message. Rather, AstraZeneca, health officials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and government regulatory bodies all said there was no causal link between the vaccine formula and the patients' blood clots. "In fact, nearly every country that issued a suspension acknowledged that it had no evidence the vaccine had caused the blood clots," NBC reported at the time. "Health experts have pointed out that the people most likely to currently be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations are also more likely to have other health problems, which could put them at higher risk for blood clots." reported at the time See our fact check into the matter here. here Since then, many European countries restarted their programs after the European Medicine Agency dubbed the AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective" despite the blood-clot reports. EMA said in a statement: European Medicine Agency In other words, we rate the meme's claim regarding AstraZeneca a "Mixture" of false and factual information. It was true that a number of European countries temporarily suspended the use of the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine after a handful of recipients reported blood clots. But no evidence proved those thromboembolic issues were a direct, adverse affect of the vaccine (rather than unrelated medical issues), and several countries restarted their AstraZeneca vaccination programs since the brief halt.
In January 2020, readers asked us about viral Facebook posts that offered a particularly poignant perspective in the U.S. on the U.S.-ordered assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite clandestine Quds Force.  On Jan. 3, the following message was posted to Facebook: posted For those people who want to apologize to Iran for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, I present you with Army Captain Brian S. Freeman. Brian was a loving husband, father, Olympic caliber athlete and Army Civil Affairs team leader who actually cared about people regardless of who they were, where they came from, what God they worshipped, or their politics. 13 years ago this month, Cpt. Brian Freeman and his team of Civil Affairs soldiers were in Karbala, Iraq at a meeting to help improve the lives of the people of that province. During that meeting, a team under the command of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, stormed in, killing a number of Americans, and capturing Brian and several members of his team. The captured CA team members were handcuffed, driven away from the meeting and later executed. Once found, in spite of our best efforts, several medics, including myself, unsuccessfully attempted to save Brian. Captain Freeman is but one of the lives lost due to the evil of Qassem Soleimani. Qassem Soleimani was an evil person whose end, regardless of the politics surrounding it is a good thing. With that, anyone apologizing to Iran for Soleimani's death is, I feel, pandering to an oppressive regime out of either ignorance, moral bankruptcy, or in a heartless attempt at self-promotion. Rest in Peace Brian.  That message was promulgated even further when it was re-posted by another user.   re-posted According to the U.S. Department of Defense, sufficient evidence and intelligence exists to conclude that the January 2007 attack in Karbala, Iraq, which killed five U.S. service members including Freeman, was one of several that was directed, planned, and funded by the Quds Force  an elite branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani was head of that force until his death on Jan. 2, 2020. So the key claim made in the Facebook posts shared so widely in January  that Soleimani, as senior leader of the Quds Force, was responsible for the death of Freeman  reflects the official position and conclusion of the U.S. government. However, both the Iranian government and Soleimani himself have denied any Quds Force involvement in attacks perpetrated against U.S. forces in Iraq at that time of Freeman's death. We asked the Department of Defense (DOD) if it could provide evidence that would demonstrate the role of the Quds Force, and Soleimani in particular, in the planning or ordering of the attack, but we received no response. The claim that Soleimani was, at least in part, responsible for the death of Freeman and four others in the January 2007 attack appears quite plausible. However, evidence that would definitively demonstrate that responsibility is not publicly available, and as a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If we obtain such evidence, we will update this fact check accordingly.  Freeman was assigned to the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion and was attending meetings at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, on Jan. 20, 2007. Around 5 p.m. local time that day, insurgents wearing U.S.-style military uniforms attacked the compound. Here's how DOD described the attack, a week later: described At about 5 p.m. that day, a convoy consisting of at least five sport utility vehicles entered the Karbala compound and about 12 armed militants attacked the American troops with rifle fire and hand grenades, officials said. One soldier was killed and three others wounded by a hand grenade thrown into the center's main office. Other explosions within the compound destroyed three Humvees. The attackers withdrew with four captured U.S. soldiers and drove out of the Karbala province into the neighboring Babil province. Iraqi police began trailing the assailants after they drew suspicion at a checkpoint. Three soldiers were found dead and one fatally wounded, along with five abandoned vehicles, near the town of Mahawil. Two were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles. The other two were found nearby on the ground. One soldier was found alive but died en route to a nearby hospital. All suffered from gunshot wounds. Also recovered at the site were U.S. Army-type combat uniforms, boots, radios and a non-U.S. made rifle, officials said. The five U.S. service members listed as killed in the attack were: Due to the relative sophistication of the attack, U.S. military officials quickly suspected Iranian involvement in its planning. By July 2007, DOD had come to the conclusion that the Karbala attack was indeed one of several carried out against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq, which had been planned and directed by Iran, specifically by "senior leadership" of the Quds Force. At that time, Soleimani was the head of the Quds Force. Here's how the Department of Defense described that Iranian involvement in a July 2007 statement: suspected statement While al Qaeda in Iraq remains the main enemy in the country, coalition and Iraqi forces are increasingly targeting groups whose training, funding and supplies come from Iran, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq said today. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner also said Iran is funding Hezbollah operatives in Iraq. Hezbollah is a Shiia extremist group based in Lebanon. The terror group has seats in the Lebanese parliament and operates as a shadow government for Shiia areas of that country. Iran trains, supplies and funds that group. Actions against these Iraqi groups have allowed coalition intelligence officials to piece together the Iranian connection to terrorism in Iraq. Bergner said that Irans Quds Force, a special branch of Irans Revolutionary Guards, is training, funding and arming the Iraqi groups. ... The groups operate throughout Iraq. They planned and executed a string of bombings, kidnappings, sectarian murders and more against Iraqi citizens, Iraqi forces and coalition personnel. They receive arms -- including explosively formed penetrators, the most deadly form of improvised explosive device -- and funding from Iran. They also have received planning, help and orders from Iran, Bergner said. Of greatest relevance to this fact check, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said two men prominently involved in the series of attacks, including the Karbala attack  Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali  had themselves not only acknowledged the role of the Quds Force in planning and funding the Karbala attack, but said Iran's assistance was essential to its execution. One group leader was Azhar Dulaymi, whom coalition forces killed May 19. Bergner said the terrorist led the Jan. 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. Dulaymi worked closely with Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali, two men with direct links to Iran. Coalition forces captured Daqduq on March 20. He is Lebanese-born and has served for the past 24 years in Lebanese Hezbollah, Bergner said. He was in Iraq working as a surrogate for Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force operatives involved with special groups. Daqduq, a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon since 1983, served as a bodyguard for Hezbollah leader Sayyad Hassan Nazrullah. He also led Hezbollah operations in large areas of Lebanon, Bergner said. In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hezbollah leadership to go to Iran and work with the Quds Force to train Iraqi extremists, the general said. In May 2006, he traveled to Tehran with Yussef Hashim, a fellow Lebanese Hezbollah and head of their operations in Iraq. There they met with the commander and deputy commander of the Iranian Quds Force special external operations. Daqduq was ordered to Iraq to report on the training and operations of the Iraqi special groups. In the year prior to his capture, Ali Musa Daqduq made four trips to Iraq, Bergner said. He monitored and reported on the training and arming of special groups in mortars and rockets, manufacturing and employment of improvised explosive devices, and kidnapping operations. Most significantly, he was tasked to organize the special groups in ways that mirrored how Hezbollah was organized in Lebanon. Daqduq also helped the Quds Force in training Iraqis inside Iran. Quds Force, along with Hezbollah instructors train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them back to Iraq organized into these special groups, he said. They are being taught how to use (explosively formed penetrators), mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper and kidnapping operations. The Quds Force also supplies the groups with weapons and a funding stream of between $750,000 to $3 million a month. Without this support, these special groups would be hard-pressed to conduct their operations in Iraq, Bergner said. ...Khazali was captured with Daqduq. He was in charge of these groups throughout Iraq since June 2006. He is an Iraqi who worked to develop the Iraqi groups into a network similar to Hezbollah. It is important to point out that both Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali state that senior leadership within the Quds Force knew of and supported planning for the eventual Karbala attack that killed five coalition soldiers, Bergner said. Ali Musa Daqduq contends the Iraqi special groups could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Quds Force." Ali Musa Daqduq and Qayis Khazali both confirm that Qayis Khazali authorized the operation and Azhar al Dulaymi, who we killed in an operation earlier this year, executed the operation. All of this is counter to pledges Iran has made to the Iraqi government to respect territorial boundaries and work to ease violence inside Iraq, Bergner said. [Emphasis is added]. So the official position of the U.S. government has been that the Karbala attack which killed Freeman and four other service members was one of several attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq which were planned, coordinated, funded or directed by the Quds Force, and that two terrorists captured months later had themselves said "senior leadership" of the Quds Force (which can reasonably be understood to mean Soleimani) "knew of and supported planning" for the Karbala attack.  This would certainly appear to lend credibility to the claim, in widely shared Facebook posts, that the forces that killed Freeman were commanded by Soleimani, though it seems more likely they were trained and commanded by others, as part of a broader strategy overseen and directed by Soleimani, on behalf of the Iranian government.  However, definitive proof of Quds Force and Soleimani involvement in the Karbala attack is not publicly available. We asked DOD to provide any evidence, potentially including correspondence or statements made by participants such as Daqduq or Khazali, that would corroborate and support the official U.S. position on responsibility for the Karbala attack. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response. Furthermore, both the Iranian government and Soleimani himself denied being responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. After Bergner's July 2007 briefing, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson rejected allegations of Iranian involvement, in general, non-specific terms, saying: "American leaders have gotten into the habit of issuing ridiculous and false statements without providing evidence, with political and psychological aims. The country's defense minister, Mohammad Najar, also reportedly denied Iranian "military interference" in Iraq.  rejected denied In 2007, shortly after the Karbala attack, then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad sent a diplomatic cable in which he recounted a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. According to Khalilzad, Talabani had met with Soleimani in Syria, and the Quds Force leader had assured the president he was not directing attacks on American troops in Iraq, reportedly saying: "I swear on the grave of Khomeini I haven't authorized a bullet against the U.S." recounted Those denials should be viewed with an appropriate degree of skepticism, but they must be noted. The Iranian denials, combined with the absence of publicly available evidence that definitively demonstrates Iranian, Quds Force, or Soleimani responsibility for the Jan. 20, 2007, attack that killed Freeman and four other Americans in Karbala, means we are, for now, issuing a rating of "Unproven." American Forces Press Service. "Karbala Attackers Used U.S. Army-Styled Uniforms to Gain Access."
 U.S. Department of Defense. 26 January 2007. CNN. "Iran Involvement Suspected in Karbala Compound Attack."
 31 January 2007. Garamone, Jim. "Iran Arming, Training, Directing Terror Groups in Iraq, U.S. Official Says."
 American Forces Press Service, U.S. Department of Defense. 2 July 2007. NBC News/The Associated Press. "U.S. Accuses Iran of Role in Deadly Attack in Iraq."
 2 July 2007. Gordon, Michael R. "U.S. Ties Iran to Deadly Iraq Attack."
 The New York Times. 2 July 2007. Gordon, Michael R. and Bernard E. Trainor. "The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama."
 Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 25 September 2012. In a September 2011 floorspeech, Democratic U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin spoke of two concerns he said are growing in the Lone Star State: poverty and hunger.Doggett said that in tough times, more families are turning to food banks, creating immense demand. Among his examples: The Austin-basedCapital Area Food Bank of Texasthis year is delivering 50 percent more food to poor people than it did three years ago.In his speech, Doggett attributed that figure to John Turner, a food bank official. We wondered if the proclaimed increase was correct, and if so, whether that accurately reflected a surge in hunger in our area.The food bank, founded in 1981, takes in donations of food and money from the government, the food industry and the public, then distributes food to Central Texas residents directly and through more than 350 agencies in its 21-county service area roughly centered on Travis and Williamson counties. (Click to view a map. )The regions north edge runs from Mills County in the west to Freestone County in the east; its south edge runs from Gillespie and Blanco counties in the west to Fayette County on the east.Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl told us by email that Doggett drew his 50 percent figure from aSept. 4, 2011, news story in theGuardian, a British newspaper, which quotes Turner saying the food bank was delivering 50 percent more food to the poor than it had done three years ago.In an interview, Turner, the food banks senior director for marketing and branding, recently told us hed given theGuardiana conservative estimate: The pounds of food distributed by the bank had actually increased 64 percent, going from 15.4 million pounds in 2007 to 25.3 million pounds in 2010. Turner noted, too, that the 2010 poundage was inflated by one-time federal stimulus aid enabling the bank to buy an additional 2.3 million pounds for the Summer Food Nutrition Program. Subtract that, and the 2010 figure becomes 23 million pounds -- up 49 percent from what the bank gave out in 2007.So, do the poundage figures mean hunger in the area shot up 49 percent or more over the past few years?J.C. Dwyer of the Texas Food Bank Network, the state association of food banks, told us pounds of food distributed generally isn't the best measure of need in a food bank's region: Its more of a metric for how were dealing with the needs, Dwyer said. A better way of gauging needs, he said, is to track the number of residents requesting food assistance.That is, the amount of food distributed doesn't necessarily reflect ups and downs in need. In the holiday season, donations and distributions surge, for instance, but that doesnt necessarily mean surges in need.Dwyer and Turner each suggested we check on changes in food demands through Hunger in America, a report commissioned every four years by Feeding America, a national charity that acts as a clearinghouse connecting food supplies to 200 food banks, including the one in Austin.There was no Hunger in America report for 2007, the first year in Doggetts statement, but thereports based on surveys in 2005 and 2009were broken down into smaller reports covering the Austin banks 21-county region: In 2005, the Capital Area bank fed an estimated 174,900 people. In 2009, the estimated number of people served was284,900 for the year, up 63 percent from those who were served in 2005. That change outstripped population growth, according toU.S. census estimates. In 2005, the 21 counties had 2,265,981 residents. By 2009, the regions population was 2,547,559 -- up 12.4 percent. Put another way, the food bank provided sustenance to nearly 8 percent of the regions residents in 2005 while about 11 percent of a greater total of residents got food in 2009.Finally, we wondered if Doggett was correct in saying the food aid went to the poor alone.Turner told us the bank does not question people who come seeking food as to their income -- if you show up, you are fed, he said, though depending on the lines that form, it could take an hour or two. However, the Hunger in America report using 2009 data states that 73 percent of the Capital Area food banks clients had incomes below the federal poverty level.Census figures for 2010, drawing on 2009 data, show that poverty in the 21-county region matched the percentage for Texas overall: Seventeen percent of residents had income below the federal poverty level.According to the United States Department of Agriculture,Dwyer told us, food insecurity across Texas -- the percentage of households at risk of missing meals because of financial pressure -- rose from 14.8 percent in the three-year period 2005-07 to 18.8 percent in 2008-10.Our conclusion: Changes in the amount of food distributed over several years, which Doggett cited, might not be the best way to gauge changes in residents needs. That said, the number of Central Texas requestors for food aid over those years outpaced regional population growth. The 63 percent increase in requestors also exceeded the 50-percent increase in food distributed that he stressed, though, contrary to his statement, not all those pounds of food went to the poor.We rate the claim Mostly True. Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. Do dollars slip from state to state? Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested as much in aradio adaired in Missouri as he framed his case for businesses there to slip away to Texas. In the ad, posted online Aug. 21, 2013, Perry said: Every year, more than $40 million are leaving Missouri for the Lone Star State. (He failed to say, 'Show Me' the money.) To our inquiry, Perry spokesman Josh Havens said the $40 million traces toan online application created byTravis H. Brown, CEO of a St. Louis public affairs and advocacy firm and author of the 2013 book,How Money Walks.Havens said clicking on Missouri on the app shows that between 1992 and 2010, more than $791 million was lost to the state of Texas. That equates to more than $40 million each year. We confirmed his figures on the Wealth Migration app, which indicates that Missouri lost an average of $1.38 billion in adjusted gross income from 1992 through 2010--with the net loss to Texas alone totaling $791.3 million.As definedby the Internal Revenue Service, adjusted gross income is a persons gross income minus adjustments. For most people, according to the app, adjusted gross income is the starting point in calculating their taxable income for federal tax purposes. At a glance, then, Perry's math seems to work. But is it accurate to say all those dollars annually leave Missouri for Texas? We failed to connect with Brown, but an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which researches state and federal tax policy, told us the IRS annually makes available its data tallying changes in adjusted gross income across the country and state to state--also taking into account how many taxpayers have moved from one state to another since the previous years filings. For instance, the foundationsNick Kaspraksaid by phone, if a taxpayer in Missouri had adjusted gross income of $30,000 one year and then the next year filed a return from Texas showing $65,000 in such income, the IRS would record that as $30,000 moving to Texas--basing that on the adjusted gross income reported in Missouri in the first tax year. A foundation web page breaks down such IRS data for 1993 through 2010, the latest year of available data. Adjusted for inflation, according to the foundation, Texas netted $862 million in adjusted gross income from Missouri over the 17 years, or nearly $51 million a year on average. By email, Kasprak told us the net difference in raw dollars over the 17 years was $710 million, or an annual average of $42 million. This net shift in Texass favor exceeded $40 million in 11 of the 17 years, including every year from 2006 through 2010, as shown on a chart we generated. The year 2005 was the latest one in which there was less than a $40 million difference, according to the chart. The low point:  In 2001, the difference was less than $7.4 million. Source: Web interactive,State to State Migration Data,the Tax Foundation (accessed Aug. 29, 2013) Per Perrys statement, Kasprak said it would be helpful to clarify that the cited adjusted gross income figures refer to how much money was made by residents of Texas in their previous year living in Missouri. That is not the same, he said, as saying that those exact earnings moved to Texas. Its not as if these people are literally carrying sacks of money over the border, Kasprak said. The only thing that is literally true is that if you add up all income of people who moved from Missouri to Texas versus people who moved from Texas to Missouri, this is the net difference in the tax year prior to their moves. Another expert, Art Hall, director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, agreed by phone that Perrys statement reflects only what individuals earned in the state they departed, either Missouri or Texas. We dont know if they got a wage increase or wage cut when they moved to Texas or vice versa, Hall said. Regardless, Hall said he considers Perrys statement in line with the IRS data as adjusted for inflation by the foundation. Our ruling Perry said: Every year, more than $40 million are leaving Missouri for the Lone Star State. That assessment ties to IRS data on adjusted gross income for 1992 through 2010, but the results are more complex and admittedly clunky than this claim acknowledges. That is, Missouri residents who moved to Texas through those years earned more the year before they moved than all income-tax-filing Texas residents who moved to Missouri in those years. Still, adjusted for inflation, the annual difference averages about $50 million--more than Perrys unadjusted figure. Then again, this did not hold for every year. In six years--most recently 2005--there was less than a $40 million difference. On balance, we rate this claim as Half True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Former Gov. Jeb Bush has resurrected an infamous moniker from his days in Tallahassee on the campaign trail in an attempt to show he is the godfather of fiscal conservatism. During ameeting with business leaders in Portsmouth, N.H., on May 20, 2015, Bush pointed out he was well-known for using the line-item veto at his disposal as governor. They called me Veto Corleone, which was something I was quite proud of, Bush said, citing a reference to Marlon Brandos character inThe Godfather. He added that he vetoed 2,500 separate line items totaling $2 billion over his eight years. Bush has brought out that anecdote several times during the run-up to a presidential campaign, implying he would again focus on cutting wasteful spending. We wondered if he was accurate in claiming that nickname. We made our own inquiries and found that yes, pork projects really did sleep with the fishes. Offers hecouldrefuse Bush came into office in 1999 vowing to use his line-item veto on state spending he didnt like, and he followed through with a vengeance. He also wanted the state to focus on building reserves. That first year, he shocked lawmakers by slashing $313 million out of the $48.6 billion budget approved by the Legislature. It wasmore than double the previous veto recordof $150 million set by Republican Gov. Bob Martinez in 1988. The Senate was so angry about the cuts, theysued Bush over his partial vetoof funding for an extended school year. The Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled Bush defied the state Constitution by cutting $16 million out of a $40 million appropriation to keep schools open longer. They said he either had to cut all of the program or none of it. Media reports said John Thrasher, then speaker of the House, dubbed Bush Veto Corleone after the fictional mafia don (spelled Vito Corleone) for his liberal use of the power. Thrasher, who is now president of Florida State University, confirmed to PolitiFact Florida that he coined the nickname, which seemed to be something of a friendly dig. Thrashers collegial relationship with Bush was apparent in 2000, when Thrasher brought the budget to Bushs office whilewearing a white lab coat and a stethoscopeto make sure the governor has a heart. Bush answered by approving a couple of Thrashers pet projects, then chopping another $313.7 million out of appropriations. Heres a look at how much Bush vetoed from each years budget: Year Total state budget Amount Bush vetoed 1999 $48.6 billion $313 million* 2000 $51 billion $313.7 million 2001 $48.3 billion $288.8 million 2002 $50.4 billion $107 million 2003 $53.5 billion $33 million 2004 $57.3 billion $349 million 2005 $64.7 billion $180 million 2006 $73.9 billion $448.7 million * The state Supreme Court ruled a $16 million veto in 1999 unconstitutional. The first year of Bushs second term, in 2003, Bush cut a low of $33 million, but $7.2 million of that wasfunding for high-speed rail. Bush later led an effort to repeal a constitutional amendment requiring the creation of high-speed rail transit in the state. Bush also saved the most for last, hacking $448.7 million out of the 2006 budget, including a university tuition increase, spending on parks and police vehicles, as well as job training and education programs. That year state spending was up to $73.9 billion, a 52 percent increase from his first year in office. It's never easy, Bushsaid in 2006. You always hurt people's feelings. I don't enjoy that. And I'm always surprised that people are surprised. I've been consistent. There should be no surprises. And the people who really follow the budget knew that. We should note that if Bush wins the presidency, he likely wont get to whack as much. A president doesnt have a line-item veto and has to either accept or reject an entire piece of legislation. Our ruling Bush said they called me Veto Corleone as governor for his frequent use of the line-item veto. He did have a fondness for ruthlessly slashing projects he deemed wasteful or not in line with his agenda. Thrasher confirmed he nicknamed the governor after the fictional mobster. This is one favor we grant Bush. We rate the statement True. Virus name:  Mimail.i   Real. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] YOUR PAYPAL.COM ACCOUNT EXPIRES Dear PayPal member, PayPal would like to inform you about some important information regarding your PayPal account. This account, which is associated with the email address snopes@snopes.com will be expiring within five business days.  We apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause, but this is occurring because all of our customers are required to update their account settings with their personal information. We are taking these actions because we are implementing a new security policy on our website to insure everyone's absolute privacy. To avoid any interruption in PayPal services then you will need to run the application that we have sent with this email (see attachment) and follow the instructions. Please do not send your personal information through email, as it will not be as secure. IMPORTANT! If you do not update your information with our secure application within the next five business days then we will be forced to deactivate your account and you will not be able to use your PayPal account any longer. It is strongly recommended that you take a few minutes out of your busy day and complete this now. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE VIA EMAIL! This mail is sent by an automated message system and the reply will not be received. Thank you for using PayPal. Origins:  The message quoted above is not a legitimate message from PayPal  it's a credit card number-stealing redirection scam spread by a virus rather than through direct spamming. scam The message includes an attached file with the filename www.paypal.com.scr; if this attachment is executed, the user is presented with a screen that looks like the following:  Most assuredly, any credit card data entered through this screen is not going to PayPal, but rather is e-mailed to some people who have no business with your personal information.  To add insult to injury, the Mimail virus also combs through files on victims' PCs to find e-mail addresses to which it can mail itself and continue spreading.  (As usual, only users of some version of Microsoft's Windows operating system are affected.) McAfee's Stinger stand-alone virus remover can be used to clean Mimail from infected systems. Stinger Additional Information:     W32/Mimail.i@MM  (McAfee Security)       New Virus Appears as PayPal Scam  (PC World)  Last updated:  29 January 2008 During ongoing national debate over a novel policy of separating families at the border, a photograph circulated (originally from Joshua Feuerstein, a self-styled "American evangelist, Internet and social media personality" who last made headlines in 2015 when he manufactured a so-called "Christmas cup controversy") that purportedly depicted a room full of immigrant children that former President Barack Obama had supposedly removed from their parents' custody: novel policy a photograph circulated self-styled Christmas cup controversy immigrant children The attached text read:As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #shareSome versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image:Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States:The meme's text read:INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOOHey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!!The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities:Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo:Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year.The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others.Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base:The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration.  The attached text read: As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #share Some versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image: Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States: described   The meme's text read: INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP 140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOO Hey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!! The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities: published Breitbart Breitbart unaccompanied Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil. The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo: National Review Immigration Bedlam Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year. The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others. widely reported Houston Chronicle Splinter News Los Angeles Times Mashable Reuters Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base: The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care. ... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported. Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration. family separation DeRuy, Emily and Jorge Rivas.  "Disturbing Photos Allegedly Show Texas Border Patrol Facility Packed With Immigrant Children."
  Splinter.  6 June 2014. Darby, Brandon.  "Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused In Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed."
  Breitbart.  5 June 2014. Hennessy-Fiske, Molly.  "Hundreds Of Migrant Youths Held At Texas Military Base."
  Los Angeles Times.  5 June 2014. Murdock, Deroy.  "Immigration Bedlam."
  National Review.   13 June 2014. Parker, Kolten.  "Leaked Photos Show Immigrant Children Packed In Crowded Texas Border Facilities."
  Houston Chronicle.  6 June 2014. Roug, Louise.  "How The U.S. Border Became A Humanitarian Crisis."
  Mashable.  8 July 2014. Reuters.  "U.S. To Open Third Military Base To Illegal Child Immigrants."
  9 June 2014 President Donald Trump said the tax bill passed in December has already led to millions of workers getting bonuses. Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars, Trump said during the State of the Union Jan. 30. In December, Trump signed a bill into law thatlowered the corporate tax ratefrom 35 to 21 percent. Trumps numbers echo the finding of a conservative group that had compiled company announcements about bonuses, but the majority of companies bonuses appeared to be $1,000 or less, not the thousands and thousands Trump said. Trumps numbers match a compilation byAmericans for Tax Reform, a group started by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. Americans for Tax Reform advocates against tax increases andsupportedthe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December. Americans for Tax Reform used company press releases and media reports to compile a list of announced bonuses or other financial benefits. The group found that as of the day of Trumps State of the Union speech, at least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses. American Airlines, FedEx, Home Depot, Nationwide Insurance, Walmart and Walt Disney Company were among the companies that announced bonuses. In total, at least 286 companies have announced wage and salary increases, bonuses, or 401(k) match increases, or in the case of public utility companies, lower rates. Trump said that many of the bonuses are thousands of dollars per worker. But it appears that the majority of the company announcements were for bonuses of $1,000 or less. The list includes about nine companies that announced bonuses of $2,000, includingFiat Chryslers 60,000 employees. Some companies were very clear about who deserves credit for the bonus. The Hammock Source in North Carolina was one of many companies to announce employee bonuses following the passage of the tax bill. The company handed out the bonuses in envelopes that said, Trump Republican tax reform bonus. We at The Hammock Source want to continue to invest in the people that have made our business successful, CEO Walter Perkins III said in a press release Jan. 25. President Trumps tax cuts will provide the funds to make this desire a reality. We hope that other business will follow our lead and give back to their employees as well. The Americans for Tax Reform analysis was only of recent bonus announcements and did not include a historical comparison to determine how many of these companies gave bonuses in recent years. Its not unusual for manycompanies to give bonuses. Experts say that Trumps claim is lacking important context. The bonuses only affect a small percentage of American workers. Willis Towers Watson, a global human resources consulting firm, surveyed 333 large and midsize employers in January to ask about their plans related to the tax bill. The survey showed that about 6 percent said they provided profit sharing or a bonus in 2017 and 5 percent planned to do so in 2018, while 10 percent were considering it. A slightly smaller number had given wage increases or planned to do so. AReuters/Ipsos pollshowed 2 percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the tax law. The poll was conducted of 5,254 adults Jan. 12-23. Economists say it will take more time to fully assess the economic impact of the tax reform bill. Labor trend experts said that amid a tightening labor market and low unemployment, companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told PolitiFact that one-time bonuses are a low-risk way for companies to pass on some expected benefits of the tax bill to workers without being on the hook for sustained higher base wages. In this hiring environment, plans for pay increases are likely to have already been in the works, and the passage of the recent tax bill may simply have been the occasion for announcement rather than the cause, he said. The news coverage following the new tax policy may have led some employers to announce pay or benefit changes in an effort to stay ahead of competitors. This is not to say the tax bill hasnt affected recent decisions to raise wages at all, but the full impact of tax reform on the job market is something that well only know in time  years or even a decade from now, Chamberlain said. Brian Kropp, HR practice leader at Gartner, an information technology research and advisory company, told PolitiFact that companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. While, it is true that some companies have used the tax cut to provide bonuses for employees, the majority of companies had already been increasing, or planning to increase rewards, well before the tax cut, he said. Companies announcing bonuses by the end of 2017 do get a tax advantage of claiming a deduction in that tax year, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder told PolitiFact. A payment in 2017 would be deductible at a 35 percent rate; the same payment in 2018 would be deductible only at the new 21 percent rate, Toder said. My understanding is companies would only have had to announce the bonus by the end of 2017 to claim the deduction in tax year 2017; they would not literally have had to send out the checks. Any surge in bonus payments now probably says little or nothing about how the corporate tax cuts will affect wages in the long-run, Toder said. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute who favored the corporate tax changes in the bill, said that the response from corporations was a surprise. Taxes matter to businesses, and they respond, he said. However, bonuses are a short-term response to the tax bill, which is less important than potential long-term changes, such as whether corporations will build new factories or purchase more machinery. Trump said, Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars. Americans for Tax Reform, a group that supported the tax reform bill, found that at least 3 million Americans are receiving bonuses that the companies said were related to passage of the tax bill, based on company press releases and news reports. However, economists and labor experts say it will take years to fully assess the economic impact of the tax bill. In this tight labor market, its possible that some businesses were already planning to give out bonuses or other financial incentives to retain workers. We rate this claim Mostly True. In April 2007, a dark brown leather sofa set (couch, loveseat, and chair) obtained from Vanaik Furniture and Mattress store in Toronto was discovered by the Brampton family that purchased it to bear a startlingly racist descriptor, tags pronouncing the items' chocolate shade to be "Nigger-brown":  The set had been manufactured by a furniture maker operating in Guangzhou, China. The offensive labels escaped notice both at the Toronto furniture store and at its supplier, Cosmos Furniture in Scarborough. Each of the three pieces had a similar label affixed to the woven protective covering wrapped around them.  A Chinese software company, Kingsoft Corp., acknowledged their translation program was at fault. When the Chinese characters for "dark brown" were typed into an older version of their Chinese-English translation software, the offensive description came up. (The program's 2007 version no longer produce that result.) The software had been programmed with terms garnered from a Chinese-English dictionary.  A similar controversy erupted in 2017 when consumers reported seeing a wig base cap offered for sale on web sites such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com whose description identified it as being "nigger brown" in color:  Words aren't dropped from a language in the blink of an eye: While new terms can swiftly become part of the common lexicon, that which has fallen from linguistic favor departs far more slowly. Though now widely regarded as one of the words one must not say, it wasn't that long ago that Western society routinely used "nigger" as a color descriptor of various goods, even well after it was no longer used as a descriptor of people. Around 1914, Lady's Pictorial a London magazine, routinely presented ads for soft taffeta hats in "nigger-black." A 1915 edition of the British Home Chat magazine described cloth as "nigger-brown." Writers D.H. Lawrence and John Dos Passos wrote about "nigger-grey" and "nigger-pink." And, as late as 1973, The Times of London wrote of autumnal colours in a shade that "used to be nigger brown." While Western society has now eschewed the word, in some parts of the world it continues to be used as a descriptor of an item's color. In China, "nigger-brown" pigment was available for purchase in 2007 from the Wenzhou Kunwei Pearly-Lustre Pigment Co., Ltd., and men's shoes from the Nanhai De Xing Leather Shoes Habiliment Co., Ltd., were described on its web site as: "This product is comfortable for wearing, it looks very simple and artistic. Size: 39#-46# Color: nigger-brown." described Such are the pitfalls of dealing with a global economy: goods produced and labeled in one part of the world are sold internationally, and terms that are irredeemably offensive in some places barely give anyone pause in others. Until the epithet falls out of use everywhere, look for more gobsmacked Western consumers ending up with "nigger brown" couches and shoes. Other descriptive labels commonly used in times past have since been dropped by the wayside as awareness of their potential to offend grew. In 1962, Crayola renamed as "peach" the crayon it had until then vended as "flesh," and in 1999 it changed to "chestnut" what had previously been labeled "Indian Red." (The company asserted Indian red was not meant to represent the skin color of Native Americans, but rather referred to a reddish-brown pigment found near India.) Kopun, Francine.  "Seeing Red Over Brown."
  The Toronto Star.  14 April 2007  (p. A1).
 Noronha, Charmaine.  "Racial Slur on Couch Label Blamed on Chinese Company's Faulty Software Program."
  Associated Press.  19 April 2007. Wilkes, Jim.  "Racial Slur on Sofa Label Stuns Family."
  The Toronto Star.  6 April 2007  (p. B1). Willis, Kiersten.  "Amazon and Walmart Investigating After N Brown Hair Cap Sparks Backlash."
  Atlanta Black Star.  17 July 2017.