Did 62°C Temperatures in Kuwait Cause Trees to Burst into Flames?
In July 2017, social media users shared videos and images of burning trees and melting streetlights, the purported results of a record-breaking heatwave in Kuwait during which temperatures soared to 62 Celsius (143.6 Fahrenheit). First of all, a 62 Celsius day has never been recorded. The highest temperature on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, was 56.7C (134F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek, California. The highest temperature in Kuwait, 54C, was recorded in Mitrabah in July 2016. Although the footage of trees burning is likely real, the claim that these fires were caused by 62 Celsius temperatures is unfounded. temperature recorded The weather in Kuwait hovered around 50C during July 2017: hovered   The web site Frontnews.eu shared one of the most popular videos of this claim, showing a tree burning on the side of the road along with the report that the temperature had reached 62C in Kuwait: shared In Kuwait, the air temperature in some places reached 62 degrees Celsius in an open area where there is no shadow. Users of social networks share videos of burning trees, bushes, and also note that because of the heat, gasoline in the car tanks exploded.  This video was actually shot in Madinah, Saudi Arabia, and captured a palm tree that was struck by lightning, as the website alweeam.com reported (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity): actually Madinah struck A thunderbolt struck a palm tree on the famous Sultana Street in Madinah. Following the heavy rains in the region today and some of its provinces, the fire broke out in the entire palm before the civil defense fire brigade began its work. A video clip was documented by a citizen. The burning process started gradually with the burning palm tree, and quickly spread to the whole of the surrounding area, causing danger to the firefighters before the fire brigade put out the fire in the palm and the surrounding trees.                                         .                                               . A second video purported to show a plant burning due to Kuwait's high temperatures:  Although this video was shot in Kuwait, we found no evidence to suggest that the plant burst into flame solely because of high air temperatures. Local news reports (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity) noted the cause of the fire was unknown: reports Firefighters extinguished a fire in a number of trees on the first ring road near the Martyr's Park. In the details, a report was sent to the operating room stating that a fire broke out on the first ring road. The Shuwaikh industrial fire station was called and the fire was extinguished. Firefighters are currently investigating.                .                           .        . A photograph of a melting traffic light also appeared alongside the claim about the high temperatures: alongside   Although this image was taken in Kuwait, it dated back to 2013 and showed a street light that reportedly melted due to a nearby car fire. 2013 reportedly One final image was circulated as "evidence" that temperatures had reached 62C in Kuwait:   According to the Kuwait Times, however, this image was manipulated. Meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, explained that the temperature has never reached 62C in Kuwait and that such reports were just "fake news": explained Do not believe in fake news, warned meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, as he debunked social media reports that temperatures in Kuwait reached 62 degrees. It is fake news  not true, Saadoun told Kuwait Times. Kuwait has only recorded temperatures of a maximum of 52 degrees centigrade. Never in history has the temperature in Kuwait reached 62. As we speak now, the temperature is 49 degrees Celsius (at 2 pm yesterday), but people have been posting images of 54, 56 degrees  the temperature inside the car is higher, but not as per our weather monitoring system. Saadoun said the mercury will continue to rise in the next few days till the end of July, but by the beginning of August, the heat will start subsiding. This has been the usual weather in Kuwait. This period is called the summer solstice. This is the period when the sun is right next to us up there, and we expect such weather in July, he said. World Meteorological Organization.  "High Temperatures and Extreme Weather Continue."
  7 July 2017. Chand, Eudore.  "Shrubs, Palm in GCC on Fire Due to Heat? Watch Videos."
  Emirates 247.  7 August 2017. Garcia, Ben.  "62 Degrees Centigrade Temperature Untrue, Fake News."
  Kuwait Times.  2 July 2017.
The target in one of themostcompetitiveof Wisconsins nine Senaterecallracesis state Sen.Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, an architect of a 2011-2013 state budget that reduces aid to public schools by nearly $800 million.But one of the states major political players, the conservativeClub for Growth Wisconsin, is turning the tables. It claims Darlings challenger, state Rep.Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, also backed a sizable school funding cut.The attack is part of aradioadthat began airing about a week before Pasch won the Democratic primary.Club for Growth, whichadvocatesfor limited government and minimal taxation, mostly branded Pasch as a tax-and-spender in the ad. But at one point, the female narrator says Pasch voted to to cut school aid by nearly $300 million.Club for Growth also makes the school aid claim in similar ads that have targeted two other Assembly Democrats who are challenging incumbent Republicans in recall races,accordingto theLa Crosse Tribune.They are Rep. Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, running against Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse; and Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo, challenging Luther Olsen of Ripon. Those elections, and the Pasch-Darling contest, are on Aug. 9, 2011.When we asked for evidence to back the claim against Pasch, Club for Growth spokesman R. J. Johnson cited a May 2009Milwaukee Journal Sentinelarticle.It referred to the 2009-2011 budget submitted by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, which proposed cutting state aid for schools by $290 million. That was before the Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, voted on the budget.But a month later, Pasch joined all but two Assembly Democrats inapprovingthe spending plan. The final budget cut general school aid by$294 million-- to $9.3 billion -- over two years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.So, Club for Growth Wisconsin is correct in saying Pasch voted to cut school aid nearly $300 million. But is that whole story?In the same article cited by Club for Growth, Doyle said total spending on public schools would actually rise by about 5 percent because schools would get an additional $877 million in federal stimulus funds. That seemed to indicate that stimulus money would more than offset the state aid reduction. Gillian Morris, Paschs campaign spokeswoman, said that was also her understanding of what happened.But that was not the case.According to the fiscal bureau and the state Department of Public Instruction, the $294 million aid reduction took into account both the cut in state funds and the federal stimulus money that was added in.In other words, the stimulus money was not enough to offset the state funding cut. The net result for schools was a reduction in funding of $294 million.In sum, Club for Growth Wisconsin claimed that Pasch voted to cut nearly $300 million in aid to schools. The record shows the claim was on the mark.We rate the statement True. In July 2019, registered sex offender and hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on charges relating to the sex trafficking of minors. In addition to the severity of the alleged crimes, Epstein's arrest made headlines due to his connections to well-known public figures and politicians, including President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. arrested The news of Epstein's arrest sent political partisans into overdrive as they attempted to show that politicians on their side were less involved with Epstein than politicians on the other side. So when images of President Trump with Epstein were published by news outlets and circulated on social media, his defenders were upset not to see similar images of Bill Clinton with Epstein being given equal prominence. This led to a rumor that Google was "scrubbing," "removing," or "deindexing" images of Clinton and Epstein together from search results as part of a cover-up to protect the Clintons. images of President Trump with Epstein Twitter users Paul Sperry, Jack Murphy, and BNL News all claimed, without evidence, that images of Epstein and Clinton together had been removed from Google's search results, and their tweets were collectively shared thousands of times over: Paul Sperry Jack Murphy BNL News       These claims are without merit. These tweets provided no evidence that images of Clinton with Epstein could be found on Google prior to the latter's arrest in July 2019, nor any proof that Google had removed these alleged images from their search results in the aftermath of Epstein's incarceration. In fact, they provided no evidence that photographs of Clinton with Epstein even existed at all. Twitter user Robert Barnes inflated this rumor by claiming that while Google wouldn't show photographs of Epstein and Clinton together, such images were findable using other search engines, such as DuckDuckGo: Robert Barnes   This simply wasn't the case. We searched for images of Clinton together with Epstein on Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yandex. The results for all five of these search engines were similar, with none of them turning up a genuine photograph of Epstein together with Clinton: Google:   Yahoo:   Bing:   DuckDuckGo:   Yandex:   A spokesperson for Google told us that no images of Epstein or Clinton were removed from their search results and that the company did not make any manual changes to its algorithm to alter which images would be displayed for related searches.  We also checked right-leaning websites such as Breitbart, the National Review, and the Daily Caller to see if they had published any pictures of this pair together, but yet again we came up empty-handed.  Of course, the lack of pictures doesn't mean that Bill Clinton didn't have a friendly relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The former president reportedly took several trips on Epstein's private jet, and in 1995 Clinton and Epstein were both on the guest list for a "small dinner party" hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention: relationship several trips   At the time this article was originally written, images of Clinton and Epstein together didn't turn up in searches on Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, or Duck Duck Go. That changed, however, after Snopes uncovered a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 print edition of Vanity Fair magazine. The claim that Google is censoring these images can further be debunked by examining the company's search results in the days following the publication of our article. On July 23, 2019, shortly after we published an image of Clinton with Epstein, it appeared on the front page of Google's search results: uncovered   Prokop, Andrew.  "Jeffrey Epsteins Connections to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Explained."
  Vox.  9 July 2019. Bryant, Nick.  "Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaires Sex Jet."
  Gawker.  22 January 2015. Karni, Annie and Maggie Haberman.  "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Terrific Guy, Donald Trump Once Said. Now Hes 'Not a Fan.'"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Danner, Chas et al.  "Everything We Know About the Sex Crimes Case Against Jeffrey Epstein."
  New York Magazine.  8 July 2019. A big part of President Barack Obama's first State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, 2010, focused on the economy.To set the stage, he said his predecessor was largely responsible for the country's fiscal shape.At the beginning of the last decade ... America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion, Obama said. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.We've checked several claims to this effect in the last year,most recently one by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Indeed, we found that the government was enjoying a surplus of about $236 billion circa 2001. Later, when Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported the deficit was over $1.2 trillion. A good chunk of the deficits racked up by the Bush administration came from tax cuts, the war in Iraq and actions that Bush and a Democratic Congress took to prop up the economy right before he left office.In the same report, the CBO projected a 10-year deficit of about $3.1 trillion. But Obama said $8 trillion, based on budget numbers published by the White House Office of Management and Budget shortly after Obama took office.Why the discrepancy? When we checked the similar claim by Axelrod, we spoke with Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition. He said it has to do with how the two offices estimate the future. The CBO bases its projections on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2010 and that a patch to fix the alternative minimum tax would expire, among other things. The White House does not; instead, it assumes that nothing changes in current law.So, Obama's overall point is correct that the government was enjoying a substantial surplus when Bush took office and had a big deficit when he departed; he's spot on about the surplus Bush began with. He's also correct about the deficit at the end of Bush's presidency, but there are two different ways to measure the 10-year projection when Bush left office. The CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. So given that discussion, we'll take Obama down a notch to Mostly True. The Georgia General Assembly earlier this year pulled the plug on one of the nations most generous state tax credits for electric cars. At the same time, state lawmakers voted to impose a $200 annual registration fee on owners of some plug-in hybrids and all zero-emissions vehicles to make up for the gas taxes those motorists dont pay and to help fund a backlog of road projects. Both changes took effect July 1, and already, preliminary numbers show sales of the Nissan Leaf and other electric cars are plummeting, Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said in an interview published Oct. 28 at Watchdog.org. New electric car registrations in Georgia fell 89 percent from 1,338 in June, the last month that the tax credit was available, to 148 in August, Francis said. Sound surprising? Maybe not. True? PolitiFact decided to dig deeper. First, well provide some background. Georgia started providing a tax credit for electric car purchases in 1998. Initially, businesses and individuals were offered a tax credit up to $1,500 as incentive to buy alternative-fuel vehicles. Two years later, the credit was upped to $2,500 for all low-emission vehicles, and in 2001, it was doubled to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles. By comparison, Louisiana and Maryland offer a credit up to $3,000, and Utah gives up to $1,500. All three states limit the tax credit to vehicle purchases. Georgias $5,000 credit meant huge savings for state residents who wanted to buy or even lease an electric car -- especially when coupled with a federal tax credit that could be as much as $7,500, depending on the capacity of the vehicles battery. Those who wanted to get rid of the tax credit said that the double tax credits were excessive and allowing Atlanta yuppies to lease electric cars, including the $30,000 Leaf, for as little as $100 a month. Supporters said the tax credit made Georgia one of the top states for electric cars, a positive step especially in metro Atlanta where air pollution from auto emissions has been a persistent problem. Statewide, electric car ownership has jumped dramatically just in the past couple of years.. According to the state Revenue Department, 1,743 electric cars were riding the roads of Georgia in 2012. By 2014, that number had soared to 15,729, or an increase of 802 percent, with two-thirds of them parking outside homes in metro Atlantas four biggest counties -- Fulton (4,288), Cobb (2,397), Gwinnett (2,087) and DeKalb (2,067). Proposals to eliminate the tax credit went nowhere in 2013 and 2014. But in this years legislative session, when raising $1 billion for transportation projects was a priority, budget analysts said cutting the tax credit for electric cars would bring in $66 million by 2016 and nearly $190 million by 2020. Supporters of the tax credit touted a private study that said, without the tax credit, Georgias economy would lose $252 million in the next 16 years. What the numbers say We began our fact check by contacting Francis, who opposed abolishing the state tax credit during this years General Assembly session. Francis shared with PolitiFact a spreadsheet that he developed based on motor vehicle data he obtained from a national automotive information company. The data showed a spike in Georgias electric car sales in the months between when lawmakers voted to kill the tax credit and when it officially expired July 1. Sales declined sharply in July, going from 1,338 in June to 776, and fell even more, to 149, in August, the last month for which data are available, Francis said. When you were selling an average of just over 1,000 (cars) a month and then it goes to 150 a month, you have to say: What changed? Francis said. Two things changed: The tax credit went away, and the $200 fee was added. We contacted officials at IHS Automotive, the company where Francis received the data used in the spreadsheet, and asked it to review the accuracy of his information. Michelle Culver, senior manager for corporate communications at IHS, said via an email that we did a spot check on this, and it is our data and accurate. We also decided to find out what the Georgia Department of Revenue, the agency in charge of vehicle registrations in the state, was seeing. William Gaston, the departments spokesman, sent us data on new car sales, rather than new car registrations. The reason, he said, was an owner could register a vehicle after July 1 but have purchased it before the deadline and thus qualify for the tax credit. Revenue Department numbers and Francis data brought us to the same conclusion -- sales of electric cars have done a nosedive. Specifically, Georgians purchased 5,434 zero-emissions vehicles -- or an average of 905 a month -- from Jan. 1 to June 30 of this year, when the $5,000 tax credit was available. Between July 1 and Sept. 30 -- when the state tax credit was no longer available -- 439 electric cars were sold, or about 149 per month. Our ruling: Don Francis, coordinator of the Clean Cities-Georgia Coalition, said electric car sales in Georgia have dropped dramatically since a $5,000 tax credit was eliminated and a $200 annual registration fee was imposed July 1. That statement is backed up by data available so far on new car registrations and new car sales. Keep in mind that car sales spiked as people rushed to buy before the credit expired July 1, and that makes the post-July 1 drop in sales look that much more shocking. Whether that trend holds remains to be seen. But everything we found so far indicates Francis is on the money. We therefore rate his statement as True. It sounds like something from a horror flick. A small, parasitic creature swims into the mouth of a fish and attaches itself to the organisms tongue  yes, fish have tongues  causing it to slowly degrade before latching onto the stub leftover, thus becoming a parasitic pseudo tongue. Over time, the host loses its ability to eat and slowly succumbs to starvation.   So claims a now-viral Instagram post that was shared in March 2021 by the Smithsonian Institute in appreciation of #ParasiteWeek2021. And if the photo was enough to give you the heebie-jeebies, then you may not want to continue reading. Because both the photograph in question and the supposed parasite featured in it are, in fact, real. The picture featured an organism known as a cymothoid isopod and was originally shared on Aug. 3, 2020, by marine biologist Jimmy Bernot, a post-doctoral scholar with the National Science Foundation and Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History specializing in crustacean phylogeny and parasite evolution. In an email to Snopes, Bernot said that he captured the photo during a 2016 survey of fish parasites of Moreton Bay, Australia.   The host fish is known scientifically as Mugil cephalus or the Flathead mullet.  "Not to be confused with the business in the front, party in the back haircut," said Bernot.  And the parasite seen inside the mullet's mouth is what is known as a cymothoid isopod that measured about an inch long. According to the scientist, it appeared that the fish did use the creepy-crawly as a "pseudo tongue."  The fact that you can see imprints of the fish's teeth on the back of the isopod indicates the fish is crushing items against the isopod similar to how the fish would use its tongue, he said.  Jimmy Bernot  Isopods are marine invertebrates, or animals without backbones, that belong to a greater group of animals called crustaceans. Only a handful of the at least 95 known families of isopods are parasitic, one of which being cymothoid, according to research published in a 2014 issue of the International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife. The cymothoidae family in particular is made up of 350 species of aquatic parasitic isopods. Widely distributed around the world in both oceanic and freshwater habitats, cymothoids are on the larger side of parasites and can reach lengths upwards of a quarter of an inch, with the largest reaching lengths of up to 3 inches. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife "Cymothoids superficially look like free-living isopods, such as terrestrial rolly-pollies or pillbugs that people may be familiar with, except for their powerful hooked legs that they use to attach to their host," explained Bernot. "As adults, they are not good swimmers and typically stay permanently attached to their host." Equipped with a long, slender body that tapers at the end and sharply curved hooks at the end of its limbs, the cymothoid can attach to its host fish at the gills or mouth as well as externally or inside the host flesh, depending on the species. Cymothoids are generally host-specific, meaning each cymothoid typically attaches to a single host species or a small group of related fish. On a parasitized fish, Bernot said that there will often be a single large female and a few small males attached nearby on the same fish.  Various types of parasitic attachment strategies of cymothoid isopods. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife  International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife   Only a few species attach specifically to the tongue, and these are commonly called "tongue-biters." Other species attach to the skin or gills, but all have detrimental effects on their hosts including blood loss due to the parasite feeding, skin and tissue damage, deformities, and overall stunted growth and reproductive issues.  And when it comes to the cymothoid featured on social media posts, the Smithsonian Institute wrote that the crustaceans sever the host fishs tongue"  a claim that is only partly true. wrote "The cymothoids feed on blood and perhaps some of the tongue and surrounding tissue in the host's mouth, but the loss and degradation of the tongue are at least partially, if not mostly, due to atrophy of the tongue from mechanical damage caused by the strong, hooked legs that the isopod uses to attach to the base of the tongue," said Bernot. In short, cymothoids do not snip straight through the tongue of the fish, but rather cause such damage that a portion of the tongue can eventually fall off.  And according to the research institution, Bernot's photograph is the only known instance in the animal kingdom where a parasite has been observed as fully replacing its hosts organ. In a reply to his original post, Bernot said that the pictured cymothoid isopod holding caused its host to atrophy  a fancy word for wasting away. Studying parasites like cymothoids helps researchers to better understand evolutionary biology and the unique adaptations that individual species obtain in order to survive.  "It appears different groups of parasitic isopods have independently evolved strongly clawed legs through a process called convergent evolution," said Bernot. "Convergent evolution is of interest to evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists since it gives us insights into how evolution can shape the morphology of animals."  And cymothoids also impact human health and economies because of their effect on fish, which Bernot said could sometimes infect more than 90% of fish on a single farm, including commercially farmed sea bass, bream, and salmon. As gross as it may sound, eating a fish with a parasite is "definitely still safe for humans," but the fish might be smaller or have scars, and Bernot said that means it can't be sold at its highest market value. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. In a high-profile event at the White House on Feb. 27, 2014, President Barack Obama unveiled a new effort called the My Brothers Keeper Initiative, designed to help every boy and young man of color who is willing to do the hard work to get ahead. Obama told the audience -- a mix of African American and Latino youth and such public figures as basketball Hall of Famer Magic Johnson and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- that he understood the challenges facing young people of color. The only difference is that I grew up in an environment that was a little bit more forgiving, Obama said. So when I made a mistake, the consequences were not as severe. I had people who encouraged me, not just my mom and grandparents, but wonderful teachers and community leaders. I firmly believe that every child deserves the same chances that I had. That's why we are here today, to do what we can in this year of action to give more young Americans the support they need to make good choices, and to be resilient and overcome obstacles and achieve their dreams. A group of prominent foundations have pledged $200 million over five years to improve early childhood development, school readiness, parental engagement, literacy, educational opportunity and school discipline. As Obama explained the challenges facing young black and Latino men today, he offered this statistic: Fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. We wondered whether that was accurate, so we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments official repository for employment data. We used as our yardstick the labor force participation rate. This is the percentage of the civilian population that is either employed or unemployed. (Unemployed refers to people who are not employed but who are actively looking for work.) In addition, we assumed that Obama was comparingyouthlabor force participation for black and Latino men to the rate for white youth, even though he didnt explicitly say that. Given the context, this seemed to be the obvious interpretation. Finally, we had to determine a definition for young. The most appropriate age ranges for which BLS offers data, we concluded, are 16 to 19 and 20 to 24. So well look at the data for both of these ranges. Heres a summary of what we found for January 2014, the most recent month for which data on the labor force participation rate is available. 16-19 years old 20-24 years old White men 35.1 percent 74.2 percent Black men 25.3 percent 66.2 percent Hispanic men 27.0 percent 77.1 percent  So for Americans age 16 to 19, Obama is correct that labor force participation among black and Hispanic men trails that of white men. But the data for men age 20 to 24 are more mixed. Labor force participation among whites does exceed that of blacks, but the rates for Latinos actually exceed those of whites. (Latinos also have a higher rate for men age 25-29.) So on this score, Obama is only half-right. We checked with economists to see if they had an explanation for higher labor force participation rates. A big reason appears to be what happens in college. Among the youngsters who complete high school, Latinos and non-Hispanic whites are now about equally likely to attend college, but a higher proportion of Hispanic youngsters drop out of high school before obtaining a diploma, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution. In addition, Hispanic college enrollees are less likely to enroll in four-year colleges and less likely to be enrolled as full-time students. Generally, full-time students are less likely to work for pay or be looking for a job compared with non-students and part-time students. What this means, Burtless said, is that more young Hispanics are free to become part of the labor force. Another possible factor, Burtless suggested: A higher percentage of Hispanic young adults are not legal residents, so they may be ineligible for the student assistance and public aid that would permit them to be students and remain outside the workforce. If you cannot legally obtain college aid or public assistance, or are afraid to ask for it, you are probably more likely to support yourself through work, he said. In the meantime, we also wondered whether having a higher labor force participation rate for those age 16 to 19, as whites do, is unquestionably a good thing, since it could reward high school dropouts who took low-wage jobs. Participating in the labor force at this age would not seem to be an unmitigated good, said George Washington University economist Tara Sinclair. Even at older ages, I wouldn't be against seeing more stay-at-home dads. Burtless said that among economists, the jury is still out on this question. Many students can combine paid employment with satisfactory progress toward a high school or college degree, but obviously this would be a challenge for some young people who need to apply themselves hard in school in order to complete a degree, he said, adding that his own research suggests that the earlier in life that Americans start to work, the more money they earn later on. Whats less clear is whether late entry into the job market causes lower earnings, or whether people who go on to earn a lot of money simply love to work and start doing so earlier in their lives. Our ruling Obama said that fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. Thats true for black men age 16-19 and 20-24 and for Hispanic men age 16-19, but its not correct for Hispanic men age 20-24. We rate the claim Mostly True. Claim:  George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin's parents for their failure to control their son.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Facebook is sharing that George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin's parents for failure to control him. I find this very difficult tobelieve.  I think this is bogus.   Origins:  On 15 July 2013,  the National Report published an article ("George Zimmerman Files Civil Suit Against Trayvon Martin's Parents") about acquitted defendant George Zimmerman's having filed a civil lawsuit against the parents of the teenager he shot, Trayvon Martin: article George Zimmerman filed a civil suit today just before 5PM EST at the Seminole County, Florida, Courthouse. The suit alleges the parents of Trayvon Martin, failed to control their minor-age son on the evening of February 26, 2012, when Martin repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman, placing him in imminent fear for his life and  resulting in the death of Martin. The civil action specifies that Zimmerman acted in self defense resulting in the case being ruled a justifiable homicide by a jury trial that ended on Saturday with a verdict of not guilty. Desperate state prosecutors charged the victim with 2nd degree murder though they had no evidence of a crime and hoping to stay off more violence and having Florida put to the torch at the criminal hands of rioters months before the start of the states tourist season. The complaint further specifies Zimmerman shares "zero-liability" in the death of Martin as he acted without malice and solely in self-defense. The amount of damages Zimmerman is seeking are unspecified. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site which publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." Last updated:  16 July 2013 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. As public outrage builds over bonuses issued by bailout recipient AIG, two senators are claiming they tried to outlaw such bonuses but were thwarted by the White House and fellow lawmakers. Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000. Wyden made the claim during an appearance onThe Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC, and in other interviews. Back in early February, you and Senator Snowe added an amendment to the stimulus bill that, I think, would have prevented AIG from giving out these millions of dollars worth of bonuses, Maddow said to Wyden. That amendment was taken out of the bill. Am I right that your amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now? You are right, Wyden said. And that's what's so sad about this situation. It simply didn't need to happen. Wyden went on to predict that a similar measure would pass now that the issue has gained so much public attention. I think finally, we'll get it done, he said. The tragedy is it should have been done a month ago when we had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate and then somehow mysteriously disappeared. In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Wyden blamed both the White House and fellow legislators, suggesting they caved to lobbyists for Wall Street who opposed the measure. Wyden and Snowe announced the amendment Feb. 4, proposing it be tacked onto another amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill. Last year's financial rescue package, commonly known as the bailout, had left open the escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the time. This amendment insists on strong taxpayer protections and guarantees that no tax dollars be used to prop up Wall Street executives. The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000. It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds. Wyden pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the amendment at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Feb. 11. Given the fact that the president, to his credit, called these bonuses shameful, and time is short, where do you stand on getting a solution to the problem of these just-paid excessive bonuses in the economic stimulus legislation? Wyden asked. We've talked about that privately, Geithner said, in part, in a lengthy response. Our staffs are working together. We'd like to work with you on how to achieve that objective. American Banker, a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry strongly opposes the provision, which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills. They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week. There is no documentation in the public record of exactly who removed the provision. Wyden overstated the case a bit when he responded in the affirmative to Maddow's suggestion that the amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now. It would not have eliminated the bonuses entirely  only that portion over $100,000 per person. And the tax that would have been imposed on companies that did not comply would have recovered just 35 percent of the excessive amount. But Wyden can legitimately claim to have taken on the issue with gusto  well before the current outrage over AIG's bonuses. We find his claim to be Mostly True.