Was Donald Trump penalized for misappropriating funds meant for veterans?
In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019.
Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. In his bid to take the seat of Texas retiring U.S. senator, businessman Tom Leppert draws on his private-sector background plus nearly four years as mayor of Dallas that ended in February 2011.When I came in, the biggest challenge was in public safety -- the crime rate, Leppert said in a Jan. 12, 2012, debate held in Austin for the Republican candidates vying to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the space of the three years, 08, 09 and 10, we brought the crime rate down by 30 percent -- numbers any city would love to have. And the way we did it is we increased the police department by 20 percent.We wondered if the rate fell that much -- and if Leppert is justified in taking credit.Leppert spokesman Daniel Keylin told us by email that Dallas crime rate dropped from 78.45 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2007 to 55.67 crimes per 1,000 in 2010, a decrease of 29 percent.Keylin sent us a 2010Dallas police reportwith those numbers and others, including a chart that shows the crime rate per 1,000 residents from 1970 through 2010. The crimes counted are the FBIs index crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft.But the rate started dropping several years before Leppert became mayor in June 2007.After hovering for several years at around 93 crimes per 1,000 residents, the rate declined in 2004 and each subsequent year through 2010 -- with the rates falling more steeply each year after 2007, according to the department. The 2010 rate of 55.67 crimes per 1,000 was a 30-year low. (Clickhereto view the chart.) A caveat: Comparing the rates before 2007 to those after 2007 is complicated because Dallas police changed how some crimes were reported.The post-2007 declines track with crime tallies that the Dallas Police Department reports to the FBI.Next, we asked Leppert what steps he took or contributed to toward the rate reductions.Keylin told us that increasing the number of Dallas police officers was a main goal in Lepperts 2007 mayoral campaign. Soon after his election, Leppert held a City Council retreat during which he advocated expanding the force, Keylin said, and during Lepperts tenure, the council allocated money in each of four budgets to hire a total 679 additional officers. Keylin also cited the addition of 176 squad cars.Dallas Morning News stories fromJanuaryandMarch2011 indicate the force had around 2,860 officers in 2000, 2,900 police in 2006, and 3,684 officers at the end of 2010.The Dallas police sent us figures for net job gains and losses that reflect a considerable increase in hiring during Lepperts tenure. In 2003-2004, the force saw small losses; then, small gains in net jobs came in 2005-2006. Large gains came in 2007-2010: 168, 203, 208 and 93 net jobs, respectively (after retirement and other departures are subtracted from the number of hires). In 2011  after Lepperts exit  the Dallas police lost 179 positions.We consulted other sources before circling back to Leppert.According to a July 25, 2007, Morning News article, public safety was a big part of Lepperts 2007 mayoral bid and of the post-election council retreat he called. However, the article says lowering the crime rate and adding police were already established city priorities.Shortly before Leppert took office, the News reported that city manager Mary Suhm had drawn up a preliminary budget proposal to hire 200 police officers in each of the next four years. In thatJune 18, 2007, news story, Mayor-elect Leppert calls the plan a good start.In a telephone interview, Dallasmayor pro tem for 2007-09, Elba Garcia, told us that from at least 2004 on, there was unanimous consensus among council members that reducing crime was a priority. Garcia, initially elected to the council in 2001, chaired the councils public safety committee. A Democrat, she isnowa Dallas County commissioner.Garcia said of the crime rate reductions: It took the leadership of many people, and the mayor (Leppert) wasnt there when we started that crime decrease.The News reported July 30, 2003 that the city was headed towards its sixth year with the highest crime rate for cities of over 1 million residents as gauged by a national report. Amid public dismay, Mayor Laura Miller met with federal and county officials, and began meeting weekly with police Chief Terrell Bolton, according to the paper, as one council member called for an outside review of the department.Bolton was fired less than a month later -- partly because of the crime ranking, the paper reported. Under the new chief, David Kunkle, who took the post in 2004, crime rates went down and public trust in the police went up, the News wrote in aJan. 26, 2011, story.In 2005, two local leaders cited concern over the citys crime ranking when they founded Safer Dallas, Better Dallas, a nonprofit group that sought private donations to support Dallas police. That year, they garnered a$15 million giftfrom the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation Fund, used to start apolice leadership academyandpurchasepolice equipment,accordingto the Dallas Morning News.Garcia told us that at the July 2007 council retreat, the council vowed to get Dallas out of the No. 1 spot on the big-city-crime list -- a goalachievedin 2009 (and Dallas dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 the next year).The Morning Newssaid in a blog post Oct. 19, 2010: To get out of the top spots, the city has substantially increased the size of its police force.In aJan. 8, 2011, Morning News storyabout the Dallas crime rates steady march downward that started seven years ago, the paper said police credit factors from public surveillance cameras to specialized crime reduction operations to the addition of 750 officers since 2004.We wondered how to isolate Lepperts contributions to the rate decrease on his watch.In a telephone interview, Leppert acknowledged that Dallas leaders had been talking for years about adding police. But, he said, It wasnt until I came in that we said, We are going to do it. This is going to be absolutely a commitment to it. There was never a commitment to a long-term effort to do it, and they never looked at the way that you finance it, and we did all of those things, he said. For those police hires, Leppert said, the city made a fundamental shifting of resources to public safety, a claim we couldnt immediately confirm.There were a lot of people involved in this. I clearly led the effort, he said. We worked together, and we made it happen. And I understood where we had to go.Still, its not clear how much Leppert directly influenced the police force increase that occurred on his watch.One criminologist told us it takes sustained effort to turn around a citys crime rate. Speaking to the Dallas turnaround, Melinda Schlager at Texas A&M University-Commerce said in a telephone interview: Many of the seeds for change were planted under Kunkle, the chief who served from June 2004 through May 2010, and if you look at when the decreases in crime began, they began under Kunkles watch.Dallas three-year, 29-percent rate drop seems high, but plausible, criminologists told us, noting that national and state crime rates also dropped. From 2007 to 2010, basically Lepperts time as mayor, Texas saw an 8 percent drop instatewideFBI index crimes, andnationwidethe decline was 10.7 percent; Houston saw a 11.4 percent drop over the same years, Austin a 9.4 percent drop. San Antonios rate rose and fell, but the city ended with a net gain of 0.1 percent for the period.Garcia said of Lepperts 30-percent debate statement: Im glad he used the word we.... All that took a lot of people supporting these recommendations, supporting the chief ... It took a lot of people and a lot of leadership.We asked Leppert if its possible the crime rate would have fallen at a similar pace anyway, considering it was going down before he became mayor and continued to drop after his tenure. If they did the same things we did, he said. I needed the city council, I needed to work with the police department; not only the leaders in the police department but the people who were out on the street doing a great job every single day.Our rulingLepperts estimate of a 30-percent, three-year drop is on target, though crime was dropping years before his tenure and factors beyond his influence surely contributed to the drop he touts --  among them private donations before he was mayor and the earlier hiring of a new police chief. Yet the police force grew substantially on his watch. We rate his statement Mostly True. The day before Gov.Scott Walkermade his re-election run official, Matt Flynn issued a pre-emptive strike, comparing the two-term Republican unfavorably to another two-term Wisconsin governor, DemocratJim Doyle. Scott Walkers time is up, was how Flynn, a Democrat running in the 2018 race for governor, began his Nov. 4, 2017news release. Average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Walker, who has been governor since 2011, hasusedanumberof economicstatisticsto argue that things are better than they were underDoyle, who served from 2003 through 2010. So, lets see how the claim from Flynn, a lawyer and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, stands up. Under Walker, are average wages lower in Wisconsin than they were under Doyle? The claim alludes to Walker bearing some responsibility, but doesnt directly blame him. And governors play an important but limited role in wages. Flynns evidence To back Flynns claim, his campaign cited two sets of statistics, both adjusted for inflation. 1.Under Walker in 2016, the median hourly wage was$17.43-- 5 cents lower than in 2009 under Doyle, before the full effects of the Great Recession set in. The figures are from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, which are estimates based on data collected from employers in all industry sectors in Wisconsin. But Doyle served another full year. The figure for 2010 was $17.37 -- 6 cents lower than in 2016 under Walker. More importantly, the Bureau of Labor Statisticswarns againstusing this particular set of data to make comparisons over time. So, were discounting this point. 2.The median hourly wageeclipsed $18in 2003, 2005 and 2010 under Doyle -- but through 2016, had not reached that level under Walker. The figure in 2010, Doyles last full year in office, was $18.10, higher than the latest inflation-adjusted figure for Walker, $17.96 in 2016. Thats according to a 2017 report by COWS, formerly known as the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The report cites statistics produced by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based institute says it usedCurrent Population Surveydata, produced jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, that are good for comparisons over time. So, the second statistic tends to support Flynns claim -- although both statistics he cites are formedianwages, rather thanaverage. While average is the term Flynn used, many people use that word even when referring to median. Some economists recommend using the median, since it is a midpoint -- half of people earned wages below that point and half were above. In contrast, the average can be greatly influenced by extremes; for example, it will be pulled higher if there are many people earning very high incomes. Our numbers We produced our own inflation-adjusted numbers foraveragewages, the term Flynn used, with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that can be used for comparisons over time. The average weekly wage in Wisconsin in 2016 was $885 -- higher than every year under Doyle -- according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The QCEW figurescome from quarterly countsof employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs. By another measure, for only the private sector, the average weekly wage in August 2017 was $827 -- higher than the August figure for every year under Doyle dating back to 2007 -- according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics figures. (Figures before 2007 are not available). So, the average wage under Walker is higher than when Doyle left office in 2010. Our rating Flynn says that under Walker, average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Adjusting for inflation, theaveragewage is higher under Walker than it was when Doyle left office in 2010. But sometimes people use the more common term average when theyre actually referring to themedian-- which some economists say is a better measure for wages because an average can be distorted by people who earn very high wages. The median wage was higher when Doyle left office than it is under Walker. Flynns statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True. Claim:  Barack Obama's education and house were paid for with money obtained from questionable sources.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2008] Written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president. Legitimate Questions To All My Friends, this is every important, please take the time to read it. This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack  not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!   Variations:  Versions of this item circulated in 2012 were prefaced with an added line stating that it was "written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president."  That statement is inaccurate, as this item originally appeared prior to the 2008 presidential election.  Origins:   The above-quoted piece combines a good deal of supposition and some elaborate conspiracy theory to question exactly where Senator Barack Obama obtained the money for his education and the purchase of a house in Chicago in 2005.  The answers are fairly straightforward. As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans, in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later.  (In the Obamas' case, it was largely the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.) student loans Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery.  The couple experienced a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million: income The Obamas' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year [as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals] was $316,962 plus another $45,000 from TreeHouse Foods [for whom she served a member of the board of directors]. vice president The copies of the Obamas' federal tax returns tax returns During the summer of 1981, Barack Obama traveled to Indonesia to see his mother and half-sister and went on to visit Pakistan with a college friend.  (There is no evidence that, as claimed above, he also went "off to Africa to visit his father's family" on that same trip.)  Since Obama had relatives and friends to stay with during that time, his only major expense would have been airplane fare, and it's not much of a stretch to believe that cost could have been covered by contributions from relatives and earnings from various summer jobs he held before and during his time at Occidental College. As for why Barack Obama went to work as a community organizer in Chicago rather than New York (where he was currently living), he stated quite plainly in Dreams from My Father that he had made multiple efforts to find employment in that field without success and "had all but given up on organizing" when he received a job offer from Chicago-based social activist Jerry Kellman after responding to a help wanted ad in the New York Times. It is true that Tony Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought an undeveloped lot adjacent to the Obamas' home (at a time when Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. attorneys) and subsequently sold the Obamas a small portion of that lot, but (as noted above) the house was well within the Obamas' price range given their current income level and they would have required no help from the Rezkos (or anyone else) to afford it:  In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day. In January [2006], aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land. As Senator Obama explained to the Chicago Sun-Times, the timing of the real estate purchases was dictated by the seller, and the prices were based on current market conditions and competing offers for the properties: Q: Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies? A: No. Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase? A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers. Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer? A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did. We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less. Last updated:  1 May 2012    McKinney, Dave and Chris Fusco.  "Obama on Rezko Deal: It Was a Mistake."   Chicago Sun-Times.  5 November 2006.    Popkin, Jim.  "Obama's Tax Returns Show Leap in Income."   MSNBC.com.  25 March 2008.    Sweet, Lynn.  "Michelle Obama's Ties to Wal-Mart Cut."   Chicago Sun-Times.  23 May 2007.    Thanawala, Sudhin.  "Obama Worked to Fit in at Elite School."   The Boston Globe.  26 March 2008.    Walsh, Kenneth T.  "On the Streets of Chicago, a Candidate Comes of Age."   U.S. News & World Report.  26 August 2007.    Wills, Christopher.  "Fact Check: Camps Highlight Foes' Old Associates."   Associated Press.  12 October 2008.    Associated Press.  "Michelle Obama: Barack's Book Sales Paid Off Our Student Loans."   FoxNews.com.  14 August 2008. 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. On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document  Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income:   Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500):   If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%.  A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara.  "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
  MarketWatch.  7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven.  "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
  The Washington Post.  23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive.  "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria  Stock Price Skyrockets."
  Bipartisan Report.  7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill.  "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
  Palmer Report.  7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom.  "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
  TheStreet.  7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy.  "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
  The Atlantic.  7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland.  "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter.  "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
  Scribd.  22 July 2015  (page 37). The Dallas Morning News.  "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
  14 June 2016  (page 37). During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True. On 28 May 2015, a news-like link began to circulate on Facebook claiming popular actor Channing Tatum came out as gay. The link's headline stated "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay," and the preview text read "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay following a number of rumours":  While the rumor was briefly popular on sites like Twitter and Facebook among Tatum's fans, it was generated by the site Feednewz.com. Feednewz.com is not a news site; rather, its primary purpose is the generation of user-submitted links that appear to be news stories. As with a similar viral hoax involving EastEnders actor Danny Dyer, the Channing Tatum hoax spread atypically far for a FeedNewz.com link due to user interest in the fabricated claim. Danny Dyer Claims like the one about Tatum often spread due to a compelling headline alone. Readers who clicked through to the appended link were greeted with the following image revealing the prank:  Channing Tatum did not reveal any new information about his sexuality, and he remained married to actress Jenna Dewan until they separated in March 2018.  Jenna Dewan Commenting on Gov. Greg Abbott pressing sheriffs to detain individuals living in the country without legal authorization, a reader brought up workers who groom the grounds of the Texas Capitol. Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the Capitol,said a Facebook commentposted Nov. 10, 2015, in reaction to theAustin American-Statesmans summary of the papers Nov. 5, 2015,news storyabout Abbott telling Texas sheriffs he might withhold criminal justice grant aid if they dont fully comply with federal requests for detaining criminal immigrants held in their jails. The newspaper published that comment, among others, prompting us to wonder: Do undocumented workers really mow the Capitol lawn? We attempted to reach the commenter to see how he reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. Nationally, according to a July 2015web postby the Pew Research Center, undocumented immigrants make up 5.1 percent of the nations labor force. In the U.S. labor force, the post says, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces. Closer to home, we reached the State Preservation Board, which manages the Capitol and nearby state facilities. By email, spokesman Chris Currens said the board contracts with a private company to care for the grounds and that company is required to use the onlinefederal E-Verify system, authorized by Congress in 1996, which enables users to determine whether employees are citizens or have a required visa to work legally here. In short,the government says, employers submit information taken from a new hire's Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) through E-Verify to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine whether the information matches government records and whether the new hire is authorized to work in the United States. U.S. employers submit the Form I-9 for each employee; on the form, an employee must attest to his or her employment authorization. In addition, agovernment summarysays, the employee must present his or her employer with acceptable documents showing who they are and that theyre eligible to work in the country. Documents that fit the description, according to the form, include passports and permanent resident or alien registration cards. A note: E-Verify may be a flawed method of weeding out ineligible workers. In a July 2015report,the Cato Institute pointed out that a government-commissioned analysis estimated that 54 percent of unauthorized workers submitted to E-Verify were incorrectly found to be work authorized because of rampant document fraud. The citedWestat report, published in 2009, elaborated: This finding is not surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it has been clear that many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify. An upshot,Alex Nowrastehof Cato told us by phone, is that even if workers cleared E-Verify, that doesnt mean theyre legal. Back to Texas: In December 2014, then-Gov. Rick Perry ordered agencies to use E-Verify. Perry told reporters then that 17 agencies already employed the system. Currens told us the State Preservation Board initially placed a clause requiring contractors to use E-Verify in April 2009 and grounds contracts have included the clause ever since. Also, Currens noted, each contract requires the contractor to certify that each employee is in compliance with federal immigration laws. The current Capitol groundskeeping contract, which is withClean Scapes, an Austin company, requires the contractor to subject employees to pre-employment and annual criminal background checks. The company also must obtain photocopies of the workers drivers license or state-issued photo identification and Social Security card or Resident Alien work visa/identification card. And the company  must provide documentation showing that this request has been met for all employees working on preservation-board-overseen properties. We asked the agency for the latest documentation. By email, Currens sent anundated noticeto the board from Marilu Sanchez, a Clean Scapes human resources specialist, stating the company had run E-Verify for six employees, each one listed by name. Currens said the notice was submitted to cover the workers at the Capitol in the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2015. By phone, Carmen Zayas, a Clean Scapes vice president, said the landscaping company has long checked all its workers through the E-Verify system. People are always going to make assumptions about the landscaping industry employing immigrants without legal permission to live here, Zayas said. We take that process as seriously as anyone can. By email, Currens told us the board is confident that the groundskeeping workers have proper legal status. Our ruling A Facebook comment published in theAmerican-Statesmansaid: Illegal immigrants mow the grass around the (Texas) Capitol. If so, such immigrants have fooled the federal E-Verify system and the agency that oversees the Capitol grounds. We rate the claim False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In early September 2018, an image purportedly showing the Nike "swoosh" symbol on the tag of a "Make America Great Again" hat started spreading online:   The image was posted in the midst of a controversy over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new advertising campaign for Nike, a sports apparel company. Kaepernick made headlines in 2016 by kneeling during pregame renditions of the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality. controversy 2016 The "take a knee" protests, which caught on with other NFL players and spread to athletes in other sports, were viewed by some (including President Trump) as unpatriotic and disrespectful to veterans. So when Kaepernick showed up in Nike's 0th anniversary "Just Do It" ad campaign, some disgruntled consumers took to social media to share photographs and videos of themselves destroying various pieces of Nike apparel to demonstrate their displeasure. destroying It appears that this image of a Nike-branded "Make America Great Again" cap was posted in an attempt to "troll" pro-Trump conservatives who were upset over Kaepernick's endorsement deal ("Make America Great Again," or "MAGA," is a well-known Trump slogan). When the image was shared by Twitter user @Nicoxw1, for example, it included a message facetiously noting that "133,291,000 Americans will have a stroke today." message The image is a hoax, merely a manipulated version of an older viral image showing a "Made in China" tag on a "Make America Great Again" hat. Here's a look at the original photograph, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the Nike MAGA hat image (right) and the original "Made in China" image (left):   It should be noted that while some third-party companies do produce "Make America Great Again" hats in China, the website DonaldJTrump.com, from which customers can purchase official MAGA merchandise, states that all their products are proudly made in U.S.A. third-party companies Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018.