Drill Bit Accident
Claim:  A construction worker survived an accident that poked an 18-inch-long drill bit through one eye and out the side of his skull.    . Origins:  Although we dread the gory industrial accidents that leave their victims dead or result in the loss of a limb (or more), other types of on-the-job injuries can strike us as far more horrific. One such accident took place on 15 August 2003, when Ron Hunt, a Truckee, California, construction worker, landed face-first on a large drill  bit. Hunt was working in the Tahoe Donner Subdivision in Truckee, standing atop a six-foot ladder while drilling over his head, when he gave the drill an extra push to bore a hole.  As he felt the ladder begin to wobble out from under him, he tried tossing his power drill aside (a standard practice in the construction industry, intended to prevent workers from injuring themselves attempting to regain grips on out-of-control power tools) before falling to the ground.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to throw the drill far enough away, and he landed upon it face-first.  The 18-inch-long, 1.5-inch diameter chip auger drill bit pierced Hunt's right eye and exited through the side of his skull.  As Hunt described the mishap: By the time I was falling, and I let the drill go down, I was already on top of it.  The drill was facing up but it was off. When the drill hit, it just exploded my eye. It skewered me. I ran my hands up the drill bit, up to my eye, and put my other hand in the back of my head and felt it coming through the back of my head, and that's where pretty much the shock set in. The first thing I thought was 'Am I going to die?' I knew it was serious. I was scared. I didn't know if it was in my brain or not. The only other worker on the site that morning, Forrest Keating, heard Hunt call for help and rushed to assist him: The first thing I saw was this drill sticking out about 6 inches from the back of his head and 6 inches out the front. It was a trip, like something out of a horror movie. I was amazed he was still alive. Keating removed his shirt and attempted to stem the flow of blood gushing from Hunt's eye by wrapping the shirt around the drill.  He then ran   300 yards to a nearby house to summon medical help, and when paramedics arrived they released the body of the drill from the bit and loaded Hunt onto a gurney.  Hunt (conscious throughout his ordeal) was then flown by helicopter to Washoe Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, where doctors pondered their options for treating the bizarre injury.  Miraculously, although the drill bit tunneled between Hunt's scalp and his skull as it came out of the side of his head, it pushed his brain aside rather than pushing into it, sparing him from death, brain damage, or paralysis.  Dr. Paul Ludlow, an ear, nose and throat specialist who was the facial trauma physician on call that morning, initially intended to cut off the drill bit but eventually decided that the best approach was to, in effect, unscrew it from Hunt's head: We had to either cut down on it, which meant making a rather long incision through a lot of muscle, or just unscrew it - twist it all the way through and out. We would have cut it off, but after a few minutes of drilling, we noticed that it was loose. And so we just put down our blade and twisted the bit. Hunt had sufficiently recovered from his injuries by early September to appear on national television programs such as CNN News and ABC's "Good Morning America."  Although he was truly fortunate not to have suffered more severe injuries (or damage to his motor or speech skills), he came away from the accident far from unscathed: besides suffering a fractured skull (which required a second operation to insert two titanium plates to reinforce the fractured bone), he lost an eye and now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and rehabilitation costs.  According to news accounts, Hunt is not covered by state compensation for on-the-job injuries, and he was a self-employed worker with no medical insurance. Injuries of this type always call to mind the case of Phineas Gage, who in 1848 survived an accident which blew a 3-foot, 7-inch tamping iron under a cheek bone and completely out through the top of his head.   Although Gage lived on for almost another dozen years, he suffered dramatic changes in personality and was subject to epileptic seizures in his final months. Phineas Gage Last updated:  14 July 2006    Sources:   Hess, Scott.  "Man Survives Horrific Construction Accident."   Sierra Sun.  27 August 2003.    Powers, Lenita.  "Freak Accident Draws National Attention."   Reno Gazette-Journal.  2 September 2003.    Associated Press.  "Man Survives 18-Inch Drill Bit Through Head; X-Ray Proves It."   Reno Gazette-Journal.  2 September 2003.    Associated Press.  "Construction Worker Survives Drill Through Head."   CNN.com.  3 September 2003.
Pets that are genetically engineered and manufactured to order may be a dream (or nightmare) of the future, but they aren't here quite yet: There is a website, www.genpets.com, that claims to have made genetically engineered "pets" that are part-human and part-animal and are "living, breathing" creatures.  Although the web site Genpets.com puts on a good show of spoofing an outlet for the sale of "pre-packaged, bio-engineered pets," no such product exists.  One common giveaway: prospective buyers couldn't actually order anything through the (since-removed) Genpets store, with the excuse given that "Bio-Genica is still developing its connections and relations with resellers while we get the various approvals needed to sell Genpets worldwide."  store Like similar items we've been asked about, Genpets are actually artworks  in this case plastic and latex sculptures (including circuitry and robotics) created in 2005 by then 24-year-old Canadian commercial artist Adam Brandejs.  As the artist explained in conjunction with an exhibition of his work, the point of Genpets is to get the public thinking about the concept of bioengineering and how they feel about where that science might lead us: items artworks I'm not against bioengineering, I'm simply hesitant towards where and how and by whom the technology will be used. That's what this art sums up. I don't ever want to be confused for as a crazy activist, nor do I want to appear as endorsing this technology. Bioengineering could lead to medical breakthroughs that save lives, but will it? This is more a critique of corporate ethics than of technological ethics.  If you're still caught up on whether they're real or not, that's ok, a lot of people are, but that's not the point of the work. Slow down, stop, and think. Think about why it is that you probably, like most people seeing the work, find it highly disturbing on some level, and yet, still want to buy one. Why is it that you're so inclined to buy things, no matter what? And what is it that makes this concept so disturbing, or not disturbing to you? Consider both sides of the issue, and consider how we treat animals in farms, and pet stores today. How does that relate? This sculpture is the physical representation of a question. Bioengineering, like any new technology promises a great deal of positive effects. We as a race however tend to put a great deal more faith into technology as a saviour than it necessarily has earned. Through Genpets I question the negative effect that bioengineering can have, for we all know that when it all comes down to it, profit is the bottom line.The question surrounding bioengineering is not in its positive or negative ramifications, or where it can take us; it is whether or not we are responsible enough to go there. When Genpets were exhibited in a Toronto storefront, they created a reaction much like the one now being prompted by the Genpets.com web site: Genpets seems to create a reaction wherever they go. While in the store window of Iodine Toronto, the shop owner began sleeping in the store as many nights, people would bang at the windows furiously. Some in protest of the small Bio-genetically engineered creatures trapped in plastic, some wanting to wake them up or buy them. Hordes of teens wanting a bioengineered pet met confused, baffled, or even shocked looks from parents. For an upcoming generation, through our own marketing techniques, life and the idea of life are quickly becoming viewed as disposable commodities. Adam Brandejs' other works include the animatronic flesh shoe and a prosthetic zipper. flesh shoe prosthetic zipper Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes  undisputed by Hutchison  showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True. FACT CHECK: Do crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into slavery?     Claim: Crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into sexual slavery.   MOSTLY  Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] Crown Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning https://t.co/u0fabfCANc https://t.co/u0fabfCANc  Phillip Hernandez (@Flipy602) September 8, 2015 September 8, 2015  Origins: On 8 September 2015, the web site IJ Review published an article with the misleading headline "'Crown' Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning": article For thousands of women across the United States their tattoos are a constant reminder of the men who enslaved them for profit. Sex trafficking in the United States affects countless women, and many are left with the scars and marks of their former pimps. A CNN interview with a victim and survivor of sexual slavery and addiction named Jennifer Kempton helped shed light on these tattoos. The article (and several subsequent republications of it) attributed its claims to a 2 September 2015 CNN piece titled "Sex-trafficking survivors use new ink to reclaim their lives." That report profiled Survivor's Ink, a group devoted to assisting victims of sex trafficking to remove or cover tattooed brands acquired in the course of their victimization: piece [Founder Jennifer] Kempton said the new ink changed the way she looked at herself, but she still had three other brandings. There was one on her neck, one on her back and one right above her groin that said "Property of Salem," a trafficker who played a major role in bringing Kempton into the life she had now left behind. She told a human trafficking advocate about the "property of" tattoo. The advocate contacted a family member who agreed to pay for her to have the rest of her brandings covered. This was the beginning of Survivor's Ink. Kempton wanted other survivors to experience the freedom she had found, so she started a nonprofit organization that pays for trafficking survivors to have their branding tattoos covered by new tattoos of their choosing. Both CNN and IJ Review linked to Survivor's Ink's Facebook page, which contained photo albums illustrating before and after tattoos. Notably, only a single crown was featured among the tattoos depicted, casting the "here's what it means" headline into doubt.  photo albums It's likely that some pimps chose a crown as the brand forcibly inked upon their victims. But nothing in the CNN report suggested that crowns are universal (or even common) among tattoos forced on unwilling sex workers. Moreover, crown tattoos are a popular choice among the inked. We found no evidence that crown tattoos were linked to sex trafficking before 7 September 2015; however, we located a number of proudly-displayed, intentionally-chosen crown tattoo examples: crown tattoos #Blue Crown #Tattoo By Iuri Chmel #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP #Blue #Tattoo #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP  Tattoo Ideas (@tattooideas__) August 24, 2015 August 24, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black-And-Grey Crown and Scepter pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) August 20, 2015 August 20, 2015  Upper back tattoo of a crown by Murat Bilek. Tattoo artist: Murat Bilek#littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w #littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w  Little Tattoos (@little_tattoos) August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown One Love pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3 #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) July 14, 2015 July 14, 2015  Even if a small fraction of the crown tattoos (shared across the internet in body modification galleries) were coerced, the vast majority of folks with a crown tattoo were not victims of sex trafficking; the presence of one is definitely not "disturbing" proof its owner was once enslaved.  Last updated: 8 September 2015 Originally published:  8 September 2015 In mid-March 2019, the social media network The Other 98% shared a meme featuring an image of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and text lauding her actions in the face of a deadly massacre targeting the Muslim community in the city of Christchurch: meme   Readers who were justifiably suspicious of content in a meme generated by a partisan source asked us whether its statements were true, and they were. Ardern garnered praise for guiding her country through grief in the wake of a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 50 people at two mosques on 15 March 2019 while Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian suspected of being a white supremacist, was charged in the slayings. partisan source Ardern did wear a hijab, or veil, while honoring victims of the massacre. Professional news photographers captured images of Ardern wearing a gold-trimmed, black head covering during her 16 March 2019 visit to the Canterbury Refugee Centre: photographers NZ Prime Minister @jacindaardern is a remarkable leader. Here, she addresses mourners after the #Christchurch terrorist attack. ? pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg @jacindaardern #Christchurch pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg  news.com.au (@newscomauHQ) March 18, 2019 March 18, 2019  It is also true that Ardern confirmed victims and their families would receive financial assistance from the New Zealand government, although it might be a reach to claim she personally offered such assistance. But in a speech given on 17 March 2019, Ardern assured victims that New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), an agency that provides financial assistance to anyone in New Zealand who is injured in an accident, would be on hand to help them: speech ACC is putting more staff on the ground in Christchurch, working alongside the Ministry of Social Development at the community hub at Hagley. For ACC -- as Ive said before immigration status is not a factor -- it is based on the event happening here in New Zealand. In an event such as this -- murder or manslaughter -- the family is eligible for a funeral grant of around $10,000. There are also one-off payments for the deceaseds partner, children and dependents, ongoing assistance provisions for things like childcare and of course compensation for the loss of income. MSD [Ministry of Social Development] is providing standard forms of financial assistance also, such as helping with immediate needs and things like one-off grants for food payments. It will also be working with individuals and families to consider ongoing needs, such as benefit support. The country is currently making preparations for funerals for the 50 deceased victims. preparations Garrand, Danielle.  "New Zealand Helping to Pay Christchurch Shooting Victims' Funerals, Regardless of Immigration Status."
  CBS News.  17 March 2019. Beehive.govt.nz.  "PM Statement on Christchurch Shooting."
  17 March 2019. The Straits Times.   "New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern Wants to Discuss Live-Streaming with Facebook After Mosque Attacks."
  17 March 2019. Fifield, Anna.  "New Zealands Prime Minister Receives Worldwide Praise for Her Response to the Mosque Shootings."
  The Washington Post.  18 March 2019. What goes up must come down, the old saying goes. But, according to Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., thats not the case for oil prices. As part of a round of appearances to tout a new Democratic economic-policy agenda, Schumertook a momenton ABCsThis Weekto promote his partys plan to curb mergers that arent in the interest of consumers. We're going to change the way companies can merge,Schumer said. We have these huge companies buying up other big companies. It hurts workers and it hurts prices. The old Adam Smith idea of competition, it's gone. So people hate it when their cable bills go up, their airline fees. They know that gas prices are sticky. You know  when the price for oil goes up on the markets, it goes right up, but it never goes down. However, this broad statement clashes with the long-term data for gasoline and crude oil prices. There are long stretches over the past four decades wheninflation-adjusted gasoline priceshave gone down. Heres a chart from the Energy Information Administration, a federal office that tracks energy statistics. And heres theinflation-adjusted data for imported crude oil. The pattern is similar. Clearly, gasoline and crude oil prices arent simply on an eternal escalator to infinity, as one might think hearing Schumer. So whats going on? When we checked with Schumers office, they said he was referring to the rise like a rocket, fall like a feather theory of gas prices. Under this theory, gasoline prices tend to go up quickly if theres a market shock, then fall more slowly after supply and demand resolve themselves. Schumer sees that pattern as one example of how big companies can sometimes have too much power to control prices, regardless of market forces. But when we ran Schumers statement by Severin Borenstein, a University of California-Berkeley economist who wrote a seminalpaperon the rocket-feather theory in 1997, he said the senators formulation is off-base. He said that while it is true that retail gasoline prices decline more slowly than they rise, the time frame for these changes is fairly short -- two weeks to go up, and six weeks or more to go down. Schumers statement suggests an iron rule, not a pattern for short-term changes following a market shock. You don't have to be an economist or analyst of oil markets to know that the statement isn't correct, Borenstein told PolitiFact. Obviously, gasoline prices do go down when oil prices decline. The change in gasoline prices since the 2014 collapse in oil prices made that very clear. Meanwhile, Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, a private firm, said that Schumers targets -- monopoly-minded companies -- arent necessarily to blame. He pointed to a study of 420 gas stations in San Diego in 2000 and 2001 that looked at the psychology and behavior of consumers. If a consumer sees a relatively low price, the study found, they wont bother searching aggressively for a price thats lower still, even though such bargains may exist around the corner. When such behavior is multiplied across many drivers, gas stations feel less pressure to reduce prices further than they already have, slowing the fall of gas prices. And economist Philip K. Verleger, who runs the firm PKVerleger LLC, said Schumer may also have an outdated view of how the oil markets work. Theres a more competitive market today -- the futures market runs everything now, he said. The futures can predict your local gas prices, and the response is more symmetric (before and after a market shock) than it was. Schumer said, When the price for oil goes up on the markets, it goes right up, but it never goes down. This comment takes a well-known phenomenon and exaggerates it beyond recognition. While experts agree that prices tend to go up quickly after a market shock but usually come down more slowly once the shock is resolved, this phenomenon only occurs on a short-term basis -- a couple of weeks in most cases. Long-term data show long stretches since the mid 1970s when the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline and crude oil have fallen. We rate the statement False. Claim:  Chuck Green penned a column about Barack Obama's being a "victim of Bush's failed promises." CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Green, February 2010] Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office. Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever. Wow. Talk about change. Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nations most inspiring political campaigns, the election of Americas first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis. Of course, they dont see it as self imposed. Its all George Bushs fault. George Bush, who doesnt have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all. [Rest of article here] here   Origins:  Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist who served as editor-in-chief of the Denver Post and now writes a column which is syndicated in newspapers throughout Colorado.  The column referenced above, entitled "Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises," was penned by Green and published in the Aurora Sentinel on 7 February 2010. Last updated:  12 May 2010 U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz sees a consistent pattern of lawlessness from this president and this administration-- unilaterally altering laws and choosing which to enforce, Cruz said in Austin on Jan. 10, 2014. One example, the Texas Republican said, came last summer, when President Barack Obama delayed by a year the Obamacare laws requirement that companies with 50 or more employees provide coverage to their workers. The presidents a big fan of saying, Its the law of the land. We need to follow the law of the land. Oh, really? Lets see, that law of the land says on Jan. 1, 2014, the employer mandate shall kick in for big business, Cruz said at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference. And yet the president just announced unilaterally, No, were not enforcing this. Im granting an exemption to all of big business. And by the way, this was done -- was this done through a big formal announcement, through an address to the American people: Theres a problem in this law; were going to have to change it? No. It was done through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury on July 3, right before the Fourth of July break. Were not getting into whether laws were broken; not our purview. But we wondered if Cruz accurately captured how the change was revealed. Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton told us by email that Cruz was referring to a July 2, 2013,blog entryon Treasury.gov attributed to Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy. The post said, The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. News coverage that day said the Treasury and White House websites broke the news.The New York Timesreported: In a significant setback for President Barack Obama's signature domestic initiative, the administration on Tuesday abruptly announced a one-year delay, until 2015, in his health care law's mandate that larger employers provide coverage for their workers or pay penalties. The decision postpones the effective date beyond next year's midterm elections. Employer groups welcomed the news of the concession, which followed complaints from businesses and was posted late in the day on the White House and Treasury websites while the president was flying home from Africa. TheWashington Posts Wonkblogsaid: The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively, Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesdayblog post. In a July 3, 2013,news story, Bloomberg News described the White House website announcement: Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, said in a blog post announcing the move that the administration decided on the delay so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers a chance to adjust their health-care coverage. Some months later, it looks to us like the Treasury announced the change shortly before the White House did. Jarrettspostis time-stamped 6 p.m. Eastern; the Treasury blog entry does not have a time stamp. But the earliest news accounts we saw solely cited the Treasury post: the Washington Post news blog entry, stamped 5:51 p.m., a Business Insidernews storystamped 5:41 p.m., and a Huffington Postitemstamped 5:50 p.m. Eastern. With the announcements, the government put in motion one-year delays for businesses to report certain information to the IRS and related penalties. The Obamacare law, approved in 2010, essentially requires affected employers and other health coverage providers to report whether their insurance plans meet the laws minimum coverage standards and whether employees are enrolled in them. There were more notification steps: A July 9, 2013, IRSnoticeformalized the change, and Treasury and the IRSpublishedproposed versions of the rules for comment Sept. 9, 2013, in the Federal Register. When we called in January 2014, IRS spokesman Eric Smith told us by phone that the final rules had not yet been issued. Debate has swirled over whether the administration had the authority to unilaterally make this change. Rushton emailed us a link to a July 8, 2013,blog postby the libertarian Cato Institute saying the Affordable Care Act gives Treasury the authority to collect penalties, not to waive them or the reporting requirements. In contrast, a Treasury officialtolda House subcommittee on July 17, 2013, that the departmentgenerally may delay effective dates in some circumstances -- such as easing the transition to new requirements -- because of a lawstatingthe IRS can prescribe all needful rules and regulations to enforce relevant laws. So: The news was announced on two government blogs. And was the originator a mid-level bureaucrat? John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that studies the federal workforce, told us by email, The assistant secretary for tax policy is far from a mid-level Department of Treasury employee. Of the approximately 2.1 million civilian employees in the executive branch of government (not counting the Postal Service), Mr. Mazur is one of only 1,217 Senate-confirmed, political employees in government paid at executive-level IV, which in 2013 was $155,500 a year. On the other hand, a University of North Carolina constitutional law professor who wrote abookon federal appointments told us by email, He could be described as mid-level but, because he is Senate-confirmed, not a bureaucrat. Under the Constitution, officials requiring Senate confirmation are thought of as officers of the U.S.  a term, Michael Gerhardt said, that has been defined by the Supreme Court as someone who wields some substantial policymaking authority. A bureaucrat sounds as if it is someone who does not have much authority or discretion, he said. Gerhardt said mid-level typically means ranking somewhere within the middle of the hierarchy of the department. It is not unusual for Senate-confirmable officials to be in such posts. Our ruling Cruz said that Obama unilaterally announced he was delaying the employer mandate through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury. The announcement was also made on a White House blog, and mid-level bureaucrat isnt necessarily accurate. We rate his statement as 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. Correction, 4:10 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014:We revised this story, which originally overstated the salary of executive-level IV government employees. This correction did not affect our rating of the claim. FACT CHECK: Did President Obama say on The Rachel Maddow Show that he was going to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives" such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally?      Claim:   President Obama said on The Rachel Maddow Show that he was going to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives" such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.    Example:   [Collected via e-mail, July 2015] Saw a meme on Facebook quoting Obama on the Rachel Maddow show on 7/10/15 about raising taxes on white conservative gatherings like the Sturgis Motorcycle rally in South Dakota. Did he really say this? Origins: In July 2015, a rumor began to spread online that President Obama was planning to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives," such as the annual motorcycle rally held in Sturgis, South Dakota, with the ultimate intent of shutting them down.  The rumor took the form a widely-circulated meme displaying a photograph of President Obama along with a statement he allegedly made on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show on 10 July 2015, referencing the then-recent decision to remove the Confederate flag from display at the South Carolina statehouse grounds: motorcycle rally The quote used in this meme is apocryphal. President Obama did not appear on The Rachel Maddow Show on 10 July 2015, nor did any other source record or report him as having said anything like the words reproduced here. appear 10 July This meme started spreading widely after it was published to the Facebook page of an over-40s single biker's club.  That iteration included the instructions to "SHARE if you are as outraged as I am," a come-on commonly used with misleading clickbait content and scams. Facebook scams Last updated:  13July 2015 Originally published: 13July 2015 The Internal Revenue Service has been on the defensive since the news broke that the agency has been giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Among the lawmakers expressing concern about the IRS was Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. In a May 17, 2013, interview, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Forbes, What's your No. 1 concern about the IRS being in charge of Obamacare? (Carlson was wrong about the agency's role. It is not in charge, as we addressed with ourrecent fact-check of Michele Bachmann.) Forbes responded, Well, Gretchen, first of all, it is the power that the IRS has that's different than any other agency, any other department. The IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. The idea that the burden of proof rests on the accuser is a bedrock principle of justice around the world. While neither of the terms burden of proof or presumption of innocence appears in the U.S Constitution, an accusers burden of proving that someone has committed a criminal act goes back to ancient times. In 1895, when the Supreme Court issued a resounding defense of the concept in the caseCoffin vs. United States, it cited sources as varied as the Bible, Sparta, Athens and Rome. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, the court wrote. So we wondered whether its really the case that the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. You've got the burden of proof. The ways in which Forbes is correct Saving receipts and canceled checks in case the IRS calls is all too familiar to many taxpayers. And generally speaking -- beyond some exceptions that well outline below -- the burden of supplying information is indeed on the taxpayer when he or she is told by the IRS that they underpaid their taxes or when they face an IRS audit. This is a traditional rule, going back a long way, said David Weisbach, a University of Chicago law professor who worked earlier in his career as an attorney-advisor in the Department of Treasurys Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel. The IRS lays out the specifics on aWeb pagetitled Burden of Proof. The responsibility to prove entries, deductions, and statements made on your tax returns is known as the burden of proof, it says. You must be able to prove  certain elements of expenses to deduct them. Generally, taxpayers meet their burden of proof by having the information and receipts  for the expenses. You should keep adequate records to prove your expenses or have sufficient evidence that will support your own statement. You generally must have documentary evidence, such as receipts, canceled checks, or bills, to support your expenses. In other words, the IRS is presumed to be correct unless the taxpayer produces credible evidence to counter the agencys finding, said Timothy Jacobs, a partner specializing in tax law at the firm Hunton & Williams. Its worth noting that as frustrating as this burden may be, the alternative is even worse, said Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University. If the IRS had the burden to produce evidence, it would have to be given access to individuals' private files, in order to find that evidence, he said. Is that what we really want the IRS to be doing? So, for the most common interactions with the IRS, the burden of proof is indeed on the taxpayer. The exceptions to the rule There are a few exceptions to this rule. The most notable, since the penalties are so severe, are for tax-related criminal cases and civil fraud cases. In these types of cases, the burden of proof is essentially the same as it is for any other criminal case: The government, not the taxpayer, has to prove their case. If the government wants to convict you of murder, it has to show that you intentionally killed someone, said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And if the IRS takes you to court, he said, it has to show that you owe a certain amount of taxes and didnt pay it. Technically, Forbes was referring to the burden of production, which is the burden of providing supporting evidence, rather than the burden of proof, which typically refers to the burden of proving a case in court, Buchanan said. Still, the IRS uses the term burden of proof on the Web page that spells out what people have to provide to justify their deductions. So how common are the exceptions? Tax experts said criminal and civil-fraud cases are rare today when compared to ordinary tax-liability cases. Essentially all tax cases are normal, non-fraudulent adjustments, Weisbach said. This ratio of cases suggests that Forbes claim is largely accurate. Nothing the congressman said on the burden of proof would strike me as outside of the norm or the general rule if I or any other tax litigator heard it in everyday conversation, Jacobs said. Our ruling Forbes said the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. Hes correct for most tax disputes. As long as no criminal or fraud charges are being tried, and as long as the case is taken up administratively rather than in court, the burden of justifying a taxpayers calculations falls upon the taxpayer. But in the relatively small number of criminal or civil fraud cases, the burden is on the government, just as it is in other types of prosecutions. On balance, we rate Forbes claim Mostly True. On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services.