Harley Skim
FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, presidential candidate Donald Trump singled out the evangelical and religious community for their assistance in getting him nominated. They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits, he said. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away, Trump said. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans. We were curious about the issue and whether an amendment  constitutional or otherwise  prevents the practice for religious institutions. For this fact-check, we're relying largely scholarly articles in theDenver University Law Review, theCase Western Reserve Law Review,Boston College Law Review. The restriction is actually a law, not an amendment, and it isn't exclusive to religious institutions. Lyndon Johnson is best known as America's 36th president, the Texan who assumed the office when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Texas politics can be rough, and Johnson knew how to play that game. Therein lies the origin of the Johnson amendment. The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved. Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations,includinggroups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics. There was no record of any debate around the amendment. The logical argument favoring such an amendment is that those corporations qualifying for the section 501(c)(3) tax subsidy should not be permitted to directly or indirectly use that subsidy to support candidates for office, said Michael Hone in the Case Western article. However it was likely, he said, that Johnson was motivated by a desire to exact revenge on the foundation he believed supported his opponent and to prevent it and other nonprofit corporations from acting similarly in the future. Nonetheless, Subsequently it proved to have a profound effect on how thousands of tax-exempt organizations  including churches  dealt with issues relating to political campaigns, according to Patrick O'Daniel of the University of Texas School of Law in the Boston College article. Thelaw saysall such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates. Violating the restriction could result in the revocation of the organization's tax exempt status and the imposition of taxes. Nonpartisan, unbiased voter education or similar activities such as church-organized voter registration drives are allowed. Historically, that hasn't stopped some religious organizations from issuing endorsements anyway. O'Daniel has a list of examples. To cite two from 2000: Rev. Jerry Falwelltold worshippersat the Genoa Baptist Church in Ohio to vote for the Bush of your choice and We simply have to beat (Al) Gore. That same year, a pastor at a Bronx church who supported Hillary Clinton's run for the U.S. Senate at the time, substituted her opponent's name for Satan during a hymn. In the face of lackluster opposition by the Internal Revenue Service, the Democrats and Republicans . . . continue to use the literal bully pulpits of the churches to preach to the party faithful, O'Daniel wrote. Nonetheless, the threat of losing tax-exempt status persists as long as the law is in place, and politically-minded religious groups, particularly evangelicals, have regarded it as a suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion. In 2008, for example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law,according to the Pew Research Center. The GOP platform has picked up that cudgel,calling for the repealof that portion of the tax law. The Johnson amendment survived court challenges in 1983, 1990 and 2000,according to Pew. Our ruling Trump said, An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Trump is correct that the law was pushed by Johnson and that religious groups that advocate for candidates risk losing their tax exempt status. It's important to note that the prohibition is not just restricted to religious institutions. It's nonprofit charitable organizations in general. But overall, we rate the statement as True. In December 2020, right-leaning observers and prominent Republican politicians cried foul after a federal court judge blocked attempts to remove thousands of names from voter rolls in Georgia, ahead of January's two U.S. Senate run-off elections in the state.  On Dec. 28, Politico reported that: Politico A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner  the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state  concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties. The bulk of the registrations that the counties sought to rescind, more than 4,000, were in Muscogee County, which Biden won handily in November. An additional 150 were from Ben Hill County, which Trump won by a wide margin. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by tweeting: "This is absurd. This is an obvious case for recusal. For Stacey Abrams sister to refuse to recuse  and issue this decision despite her indisputable bias  undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system." Donald Trump Jr. wrote "Nothing shady here..." tweeting wrote Doug Collins, the outgoing Republican congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2020, said Abrams Gardner should recuse herself from the case because "her own sister is a party!" said   In reality, Abrams was not a party to the case on which her sister ruled in December 2020. Collins stated a significant falsehood in claiming otherwise.  Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Leslie Abrams Gardner are indeed sisters. Over the years, Abrams has repeatedly confirmed as much, including when she congratulated Abrams Gardner on her U.S. Senate confirmation and appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Georgia, in 2014 and 2015. 2014 2015 The case in question was Majority Forward and Gamaliel Warren Turner vs. Ben Hill County Board of Elections et al. Majority Forward is a non-profit voter registration organization, and Turner is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia. According to Abrams Gardner's Dec. 28 ruling, the basic facts of the case were as follows. Earlier in December 2020, Tommy Roberts  a City Council member in Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County  challenged the eligibility of 328 registered voters in the county. Based on his own cross-referencing of the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database, Roberts contended that those voters had moved out of the state and were therefore no longer eligible to vote in Ben Hill County.  ruling The board of elections in Ben Hill County determined that Roberts' challenge to the eligibility of 152 of those voters was likely valid, and they designated those 152 voters "pending hearing" and contacted them to advise that they would only be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the January 2021 Senate run-off election, and would subsequently have to "cure" those ballots by providing proof of their residency. In Muscogee County, a man named Ralph Russell brought a similar challenge, claiming to have found 4,033 registered voters in Muscogee County who, according to the National Change of Address database, had moved out of state. The Muscogee County Board of Elections determined that Russell's challenge was probably valid, and contacted those 4,033 "targeted voters" to inform them they could only cast provisional ballots, and would have to provide proof of residency. Turner was one of those targeted voters. On Dec. 23, Majority Forward challenged the actions of Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, and filed for a temporary restraining order on Dec. 27. On Dec. 28, Abrams Gardner granted that order, meaning the counties were ordered, for the next eight days, not to remove the targeted voters from registration lists, or require them to cast only provisional ballots. Since that time period covered the Jan. 5, 2021, elections, the targeted voters were therefore allowed to vote as normal in the U.S. Senate run-off elections. Abrams Gardner's reasoning can be examined in the ruling itself.  ruling The defendants in the case filed a motion to request that Abrams Gardner recuse herself. They argued, in part, that Fair Fight  the voting rights group founded and chaired by Abrams  was involved in similar litigation before the U.S. District Court in Georgia's Northern District, and the same lawyers represented Fair Fight and Majority Forward in the cases. They also argued that Abrams Gardner's ruling in the Majority Forward case could have a bearing on the judge's decision-making in the Fair Fight litigation, which directly involved Abrams, since she is the chairperson of that organization. The defendants wrote: motion wrote In addition, any relief rendered in the instant case as it relates to the NCOAR [National Change of Address Registry] would likely be cited as persuasive authority in the Fair Fight Litigation. Abrams interest could therefore be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. For this reason, Judge Gardners impartiality might reasonably be questioned were this case to proceed before her. In a footnote to her Dec. 28 ruling, Abrams Gardner noted the request for her to recuse herself, but stated simply, "The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal." Abrams Gardner added that "an order detailing the court's reasoning" was forthcoming. As of Dec. 31, no such order was available on the case's online docket.  Contrary to Collins' claim, Abrams was not a "party" to the Majority Forward litigation on which her sister ruled in December 2020. However, she is the chairperson of Fair Fight, a voting rights organization that acted as a plaintiff in a very similar case, albeit in a different U.S. District Court, in Georgia, at the same time.  Whether that connection, in combination with her familial relationship with Abrams Gardner, should constitute grounds for recusal, is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation. But Collins undoubtedly erred when he claimed that "Stacey Abramss sister is ruling on a case in which her own sister is a party!" On Nov. 24, 2022, a Facebook user posted a picture of a blue owl. However, blue owls are not real, meaning that the image was a fake. posted  The post from Nov. 24 was shared at least 2,000 times in a little over one week. It was the earliest posting of the picture that we have found so far. On Twitter, the fake blue owl picture, which showed cat-like whiskers for the animal, received hundreds of thousands of likes. For example, this tweet from@jimrosecircus1 was posted on Dec. 1, 2022. It showed nearly 150,000 likes by the next day. The caption read, "I hope you don't mind this adorably majestic blue owl in your newsfeed." tweet  Under the tweet, Twitter added a context note that read, "There is no such thing as blue owl. It looks really good but unfortunately it's not true." On Dec. 2, the @daily__owls Twitter account also posted the fake picture of the blue owl with the misleading caption, "The beautiful Norwegian Blue owl." posted  According to Brittanica.com, "owls vary in color from white through many shades of tan, gray, brown, or rufous (reddish) to deep brown." Despite the beauty of the blue and orange owl in the picture, it's just not real. Brittanica.com Hoax hunter @HoaxEye tweeted of the blue owl image that it may have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The tweet also tagged the user @Valdevia_Art, who added that they believed it was likely not as simple as a color change in Adobe Photoshop. Instead, the user said that it "does seem AI-generated." tweeted added said This wasn't the first time a picture of a purportedly blue owl made its way around social media. In 2021, USA Today's fact-check team debunkeda picture of what online posts referred to as a "blue Philippines owl." VisitCryptoVille.com previously published a story about the same picture five years earlier. debunked picture story Back in 2019, AFP filed a report about a "beautiful blue owl of Madagascar," which also was fake. report At Snopes, we've previously fact-checked photos purporting to show a multicolored "rainbow owl" (fake) and a "rare red owl with blue eyes" (also fake). rainbow owl rare red owl with blue eyes This story will be updated if we find more details about the origins of the blue owl picture. As noted by some knowledgeable Twitter users, it may have simply been generated by AI. @Daily__Owls. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/Daily__Owls/status/1598613376992792576. @HoaxEye. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1598734104396079104. @jimrosecircus1. Twitter, 1 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/jimrosecircus1/status/1598366192817045504. "Owl - Appearance and Classification." Britannica.Com, https://www.britannica.com/animal/owl/Form-and-function. Sadeghi, McKenzie. "Fact Check: Viral Image Claiming to Be a Blue Philippine Owl Is Doctored." USA TODAY, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/22/fact-check-viral-image-purported-blue-philippine-owl-doctored/4533533001/. Salah, Dr. Muhammad. "Just Admire the Beauty of Allah's Creation!" Facebook, 24 Nov. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/MSalahOfficial/posts/pfbid0TazmyskVgTA2axagkDCMNrAUqheW4LRPz91UvMUaK3v6xywK5JgrQHjLy6YysK61l. "The Blue Owl of the Philippines 19-31." VisitCryptoVille.com, 19 Jan. 2016, https://visitcryptoville.com/2016/01/19/the-blue-owl-of-the-philippines-19-31/. @Valdevia_Art. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/valdevia_art/status/1598752209935560706. Yan, Rachel. "No, This Is Not a Genuine Photo of a Blue Owl in Madagascar." AFPFact Check, 4 June 2019, https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-genuine-photo-blue-owl-madagascar. A reader noted Republican Glenn Hegars upbeat comments about plummeting oil prices and requested a fact check. Hegar, the former state senator elected Texas state comptroller in 2014, told reporters early this year there are benefits to falling oil prices. Lower fuel costs should reduce the price of importing goods, which is great for consumers and, ultimately, our economy, Hegar said, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews story. In fact, the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. The same story noted the price of oil had fallen about 50 percent since June 2014 to just more than $50 a barrel. And are lower fuel prices equivalent to a 2 percent pay raise for taxpayers? By email, Hegar spokesman Chris Bryan said Hegar drew that percentage from a December 2014news storyin the Economist magazine. The story said, in part: Cheaper oil should act like a shot of adrenalin to global growth. A $40 price cut shifts some $1.3 trillion from producers to consumers. The typical American motorist, who spent $3,000 in 2013 at the pumps, might be $800 a year better offequivalent to a 2% pay rise. The magazine didnt engage with our inquiry about how its figures were worked up. We went on to query James Hamilton, a University of California, San Diego, economistquoted by theWall Street Journalin November 2014saying lower gas prices relative to the average of the past three years will in effect put an extra $108 billion into U.S. consumers pockets, generating a nearly 0.8 percent increase in disposable personal income. By email, Hamilton pointed us to his Dec. 21, 2014, blog post stating: The average U.S. retail price of gasoline right now is about $2.40 a gallon. Last year, in 2013, American consumers and businesses bought135 billion gallonsof gasoline, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, at an average price of$3.60 a gallon, he wrote. Hamilton wrote: If gasoline prices stay where they are and if we buy the same number of gallons of gasoline this year as last, that leaves us with an additional $160 billion to spend over the course of the year on other items. If we restate the total savings for U.S. consumers and businesses in terms of the116 million U.S. households, that works out to almost $1,400 per household. We checked his bottom-line figure$1,400 per householdand compared it to what the U.S. Census Bureau estimates to have been the median household income for the U.S. and Texas, respectively, from 2009 through 2013. In Texas, the estimated $1,400 in unspent money shakes out to a 2.7 percent increase on the median income of $51,900. Nationally, it would amount to a 2.6 percent increase from the median household income of $53,046. Also, EIA spokesman Jonathan Cogan noted by email that in December 2014, the agencypredictedthe average U.S. household would spend about $550 less on gasoline in 2015 than in 2014 due to falling gas prices and more fuel-efficient cars and truckswhich would be 1 percent of the median household income in Texas. Our ruling Hegar said the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. Provided gas prices dont go back up, that percentage seems in the ballpark for how much Texans could save on gas compared to what they spent, though it's also possible to get to higher and lower projections. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In 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. On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted   survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented. A series of imagespurportedly showinga UFO photographed by several different people began circulating via social media in October 2015: Yesterday afternoon in Memphis 4-6 random people posted these pictures on social media. The weirdest thing is that each of these individuals did not know each other and they all captured the same thing! Why isn't this being broadcasted on all major media outlets?! Somebody has some explaining to do. While the example Facebook post shown above reported that the alien ship was spotted over Memphis, Tennessee, other iterations of the photo set have claimed that the UFO was actually spotted inBenguela, Angola: claimed We'vehad a lot of people visiting the site over the past few weeks looking specifically for information about a remarkable UFO sighting in Banguela, Angola. The sightings were originally reported to MUFON and included a rather stunning image of the gigantic UFO that was not featured here on the UFOMG! copies of the reports. Here it isnow:  Even though these images all feature different settings, the UFO, as well as the surrounding cloud formations, pictured in each photograph are exactly the same. This means one of two things: Either a race of aliens has developed an efficient form of replicating technology, or the above-displayed photographs were created using the same stock image of a UFO. In fact, this series of photographs purportedly showing a UFO over Memphis (or Benguela) was created using a piece of fan art related to the V science fiction television series (about alien visitors to Earth) created bydigital artist Jukka Korhonen: artist   I was a big fan of V when it first came out. My love for the series has been growing bigger ever since they released the show on the DVD. The biggest news for V fans was the possible release of a sequel-series titled "V: The Second Generation". I quickly scetched out a few concept works and a fanmade poster to celebrate the announcement. As with many times in the media-mentality of amercan television, the "V: Second Generation" was not considered a mainstream series and so the network decided to freeze the project at the final meters. For this portfolio, I took out the V model I had made for the poster and combined it with one of my matteclouds. This image was one of the "doom" concept ideas that I had in mind when I first heard about the new series.  Modelled in trueSpace and postwork in Corel GS. This is NOT official art for the series, its merely fan-art from a dedicated admirer of Kenneth Johnson's work. I hope one day we will see the series come to life and see these iconic ships rise again to the LA skies ... Rob Portman makes a unique bogeyman for his opponent : Hes a Republican who not only supported foreign trade policies, which his foes blame for Ohio job losses, but he also personally advised a president on expanding trade. He  personifies the policy.Yet Portman, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, has a uniquely good comeback.He says that while many companies have survived thanks to the export opportunities of foreign trade, Ohio lost lots of other jobs to other states on the watch of his opponent, Lee Fisher -- the irony being that Fisher, a Democrat  and Ohios lieutenant governor, was also Ohios development director, in charge of bringing new jobs to the state.Its a blame game with resumes perfectly tailored for the respective attacks. But whos more to blame for Ohios job losses? The guy who promoted trade with China and Mexico and saw jobs cross those borders? Or the guy who as Ohio development director saw too much development cross state borders, not international ones? Portman, appearing with Fisher before The Plain Dealer editorial board on Sept. 14, said that if you want to compare the validity of these opposing claims, data from the state backs up his: more jobs went to other states than went abroad.It may surprise you to learn that when you look at the states own data in terms of job loss, that almost nine out of 10 jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries, Portman said, referring to Fisher and Gov. Ted Strickland. Think about that. So companies have left Cleveland to go to Indiana. Companies have left Cleveland to go across the border to Michigan. And yet its easy in a campaign to fan the flames of protectionism and to claim that the jobs went to Mexico or Canada or, more likely, China.We asked about that data, went to thestates websiteto see for ourselves, and laid it out in an Excel file. What we saw, however, were alternate versions of the same reality -- one that supports Portman and yet simultaneously presents as many holes as aged Emmental cheese.So before we put this to the Truth-O-Meter, let us show you the numbers, starting with Portmans view of them.The states own data comes from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, or ODJFS. In concert with the U.S. Department of Labor, ODJFS publishes quarterly reports of Mass Layoff Events, based on surveys of companies with 50 or more initial unemployment claims filed within a five-week period. The surveys, conducted by telephone, ask why the layoffs occurred and whether they were associated with jobs being moved from one place to another. If so, the survey asks where these jobs went: Somewhere else in Ohio? Some other state? Some other country?Reviewing these quarterly reports, we found missing numbers and an error the state had made. After we discussed this with ODJFS, the agency went back and updated one quarterly set of numbers. That changed the outcome of the tally, but only slightly. Because Portman relied on the old data, we will still use the old data to evaluate his claim.From January 2007 through March of 2010, 842 jobs were lost in Ohio because companies moved operations overseas, the old reports showed. Thats a small number compared with the 5,215 jobs lost in Ohio because companies moved their operations to other states, as the state data showed.Put another way, it means that of the jobs that left Ohio, only 13.9 percent went overseas -- and 86 percent went to other states. Now consider Portmans words: The states own data shows that almost nine out of ten jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries.Eighty-six percent is close enough to nine out of ten. So Portman is right -- yes?Well, yes -- except for the caveats. Lets start with those from the state. ODJFS quarterly  reports note that employers with fewer than 50 workers are not part of the surveys, so these numbers do not include small companies. That exclusion partly explains why the total number of lost jobs counted in these Ohio quarterly reports -- 264,016 since January 2007,  including the vast majority that had little to do with the movement of work -- is lower than youll see in other reports of job losses.Then theres the U.S. Department of Labor, whose Bureau of Labor Statistics sets the survey standards and points out that movement of work is defined as work that will be performed by a company or for a company in a new location. Movement is easy to report when a company shutters one plant and reopens another, whether in Juarez, Mexico, or Kokomo, Ind. The definition also applies if a company signs a contract to have its widgets manufactured in Shanghai, China. These are hypothetical examples, because the state reports do not give  the exact place of relocation. But if a large company with a big supply chain starts using a widget supplier in Mexico and stops buying from a supplier in Ohio, and that Ohio supplier loses so much revenue that it shuts down, those lost jobs are not counted in the movement of work column. Those jobs, then, do not wind up in Portmans comparison.Thats the biggest problem. We asked Policy Matters Ohio, a think tank, for itslatest report on trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, a federal assistance program for workers displaced because of foreign trade. In 2009, 20,677 Ohio workers were deemed potentially eligible for the program, and 9,455 more were in 2008, according to TAA certification reports reviewed by Policy Matters. That suggests that job losses from trade were massively higher than those attributable to companies moving out of state.But some of those workers eligible for TAA wound up keeping their jobs or getting rehired, such as when General Motors Lordstown plant began rehiring. Others found work elsewhere; a precise number does not exist, which presents a problem for all of these comparisons. Everyone is talking about fruit, but theyre often comparing apples with persimmons.PolitiFact Ohio has previously examined claims by Strickland and Fisher that trade deals cost specific numbers of job losses in Ohio. We have found trend lines that appear believable, but the reports and statistics the officials cite rely on extrapolations or suppositions. Someday the comparative data may exist; until then, each side in this debate simply argues a point that sounds as if it could be true -- and certainly rings true to those affected -- but that lacks the accuracy that advocates suggest when they trot out their numbers.So we return to Portmans claim. Portmans spokeswoman, Jessica Towhey, says the candidate made clear that he was referring solely to state data and the movement of jobs out of state, compared with those moved out of the country, when he said that nine out of 10 jobs lost in Ohio went to other states, not other countries. In such a narrow construct, Portmans statement might be considered accurate but there is more to this picture. Here are the numbers as updated: From Jan. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010, Ohio lost 4,820 jobs due to company moves out of state (not the 5,215 in the reports that existed when Portman viewed them). It lost 1,125 more when companies closed operations in one part of the state but relocated elsewhere in Ohio. And it lost 842 jobs when companies moved operations abroad.This is out of 264,016 jobs counted as lost altogether in this particular series of reports -- reports that ODJFS spokesman Ben Johnson say capture just a subset of all layoffs.When a statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, the Truth-O-Meter says it is mostly true. Thats how we find Portmans claim: accurate in a narrow context but needing clarification, and so, Mostly True. In a Nov. 13, 2013, campaignpress release, Debra Medina pledged that as Texas state comptroller she would resist growth in government spending, saying, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans. An earlier version of the claim sent out viaemailsaid simply greater debt burden, not local; the campaign posted an updated release online. We looked at state debt in a July 24, 2011, fact-check on Gov. Rick Perry, rating asMostly Truehis claim that Texas had the fourth-lowest debt per capita of any state in the nation, and we are the lowest of any of the big states. How does debt shake out at the local level? Medina, a tea-party favorite from Wharton, got 19 percent of the vote in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary against Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Medina campaign told us via email that her Texas-New York comparison was based on a Sept. 26, 2012,report, Your Money and Local Debt, issued by the current state comptroller, Susan Combs. In 2009, Texas had $7,983 in local debt per capita, the report said, placing Texas second among the 10 most populous states. New York was first with $8,744 in local debt per capita; California was third with $6,469 per capita. Texas comptrollerreport, Your Money and Local Debt, Sept. 26, 2012, based on 2009 data: The report relied on 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data, which Combs spokesman R.J. DeSilva told us via email was drawn from the December 2011 annual report of the Texas Bond Review Board. That agency oversees the issuance of state bonds used to fund activities as varied as making housing loans to veterans and helping local governments finance water projects. State and local debt are defined in the bureaus July 2013summaryof 2011 data as all interest-bearing short-term credit obligations and all long-term obligations incurred in the name of the government and all its dependent agencies, whether used for public or private purposes. U.S. states divide local and state responsibilities in different ways. Texas spends little at the state level; local costs may be borne by hospital districts, school districts and the like in addition to city and county governments. The Census and Board both presented local debt estimates alongside state debt. We next looked for comparisons using more recent data and all 50 states. The Bond Review Board offers its own annual estimate of local debt in Texas. In the most recentreportthat was available when Medinas release was sent out, published in December 2012, the agency said Texas local debt per capita was $7,507 in the fiscal year that ran through August 2011. Board spokesman Robert Latsha told us by phone that, though he wasnt certain exactly what the Census included in its figures, its likely the largest difference between the Census and board estimates comes from debt set up by quasi-governmental agencies such as local housing finance corporations or economic development corporations. Only debt from bonds and shorter-term securities issued by local governments is reported to the board, Latsha said. He said the board didnt calculate comparisons with all 50 states. Census Bureau spokesman Joseph Dalaker told us by phone that the bureau didnt either, but he helped us find data comparable to what the board probably used when comparing the 10 biggest states. Using those Census estimates oflocal debtandstate population-- from the most recent data sets available when Medina spoke in November 2013 -- we found Texas was third among all 50 states and, again, second among the 10 most populous. Highest local debt per capita among all 50 states: Sources: U.S. Census Bureaupopulation estimates, July 12, 2012, andlocal debt estimates, Dec. 6, 2012 In the boardsDecember 2013 report, which came out after Medina made her statement, the state board updated local debt per capita in fiscal 2012 to $7,514 by its own estimation and $8,431 according to Census data, keeping Texas in second place among the 10 most populous states. Medinas claim referred to the debt burden falling on citizens. But state residents might not be directly on the hook for the whole amount. Dalaker told us, You really have to tease out whos paying. For example, taxes on tourists can help pay for projects, he said. Moodys Investors Service spokesman David Jacobson told us by phone, Whats more important is your ability to pay back that debt and how it is structured. Many Texas entities have good credit, he said. Our ruling Medina said, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans, but without mentioning that her comparison was based on the 10 most-populated states. Texas is second among the big states and third among all 50 in recent estimates. We rate her statement as True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.