Enter to win a $100 Chipotle gift card giveaway.
In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. Claim:  Most of the $100 million raised from ALS 'Ice Bucket Challenge' donations won't go to ALS-related research and services. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Origins:  The email quoted above and other versions of it began to circulate on 28 August 2014, with widespread social media concern over the fate of 'Ice Bucket Challenge' funds donated to the ALS following shortly thereafter. On 27 August 2014, The ALS Association posted a press release confirming that the organization had received $94.3 million in donations between 29 July and 27 August 2014 due to the popularity of the Ice Bucket Challenge. In the release, Barbara Newhouse, President and CEO of The ALS Association, addressed the large infusion of funds and the organization's sudden social media fame: press release Given the large amount of cash suddenly flowing in the direction of The ALS Association, it's natural a public questioning of sorts would follow. After all, not every charity is well administrated, and not every cause is free of bad actors who would exploit public interest for financial gain. Services such as Charity Navigator, an independent assessor of charitable organizations, can be helpful in diffusing concerns in a situation such as the Ice Bucket Challenge phenomenon. According to the site, the ALS Association has a record of high transparency and ranks high in other areas, receiving an overall 90.73/100 rating anda four out of four stars ranking from Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator The claim made in the email above, that 73% of donations fund executive salaries and overhead, is demonstrably false. Charity Navigator's breakdown of the ALS Association's finances for the fiscal year ending January 2013 shows that 72.4% of the ALS Association's budget during that period was used for program expenses  that is, the programs and services the ALS Association delivers to the ALS community according to its mission, such as professional and public education, research into ALS treatments and cures, and patient and community services. Of the remaining budget, 11% went to administrative expenses and 16.5% to fundraising expenses. It appears that someone confused the term "program expenses" with "overhead" and mistakenly assumed the former represented money spent on bureaucracy rather than the vital ALS-related services provided by the ALS Association. The ALS Association's most recent fiscal year reporting is available on its website, with more detailed reports linked on the same page. fiscal year Last updated:  29 August 2014 In August 2020, readers asked us to examine the accuracy of claims that before he took office, U.S. President Donald Trump had made donations to a previous election campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., whom presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden named as his vice-presidential running mate.  Shortly after Biden named Harris as his running mate on Aug. 11, the president's reelection campaign denounced her as "phony Kamala," claiming she was willing to "abandon her own morals, as well as try to bury her record as a prosecutor, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling the Democrat party." named denounced In an email sent to supporters, the Trump campaign also labeled Harris "a corrupt former California Attorney General":   Paul Begala, a former advisor to former President Bill Clinton, alluded to a degree of irony in this allegation, claiming in a tweet that "Trump donated to Kamala Harris when she was [attorney general]." claiming In widely shared tweets, NBC News correspondent Tom Winter claimed that Trump had twice contributed to Harris' election campaign, in 2011 and 2013, donating a total of $6,000. Winter also said that Trump's daughter and advisor Ivanka Trump had herself donated $2,000 to Harris' campaign in 2014: claimed   Those claims were accurate. Records available through the campaign finance database on the website of the California secretary of state show that Trump made two contributions to Harris' 2014 campaign for reelection as California attorney general: a $5,000 donation on Sep. 26, 2011, and a $1,000 donation on Feb. 20, 2013. Harris first took office in January 2011, which means Trump contributed to her reelection when she had already been in office for eight months, and two years, respectively.  database In March 2019, The Sacramento Bee reported that a spokesperson for Harris' presidential primary campaign had said she "donated the $6,000 Trump had contributed to a non-profit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans," with the newspaper adding that Harris' donation of the money took place in 2015.  reported We contacted spokespeople for both Harris and Biden, requesting further details about that claim, including the name of the charity in question, and the date on which Harris purportedly donated $6,000 to the charity. We did not receive a response in time for publication. The campaign finance database also reveals that the future president made several other campaign contributions in California, to both Republicans and Democrats. He donated $2,500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who was ultimately elected to that office in 2019; he gave a total of $3,500 to Democrat Jerry Brown's successful 2006 bid to become California attorney general; he donated a total of $12,000 to committees supportive of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and gave $25,000 to the state's Republican party, in 2005.   The database also corroborates Winter's claim that in June 2014, Ivanka Trump  adviser to, and daughter of, the president  herself made a $2,000 donation to Harris' successful campaign to be reelected as the state's attorney general. She also contributed $500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Newsom:   Ronayne, Kathleen; Weissert, Will. "Biden Picks Kamala Harris as Running Mate, First Black Woman."
 The Associated Press. 11 August 2020. Cadei, Emily. "Big-Dollar Donors, Including Donald Trump, Fueled Kamala Harris' Political Rise in California."
 The Sacramento Bee. 4 March 2019. Claim:  Marines surreptitiously failed to observe the proper protocol in saluting President Clinton all throughout his eight years in office.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Military courtesy change I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W. leaving HM-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and as he walked away, the marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's back . . . something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency.  The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine orderly to the ship's Captain always faced him, no matter hisdirection of movement, to be ready to receive an order.  Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone? . . . And for eight years, they did. Origins:  According to this Internet-circulated piece, to a man, Marines decided they didn't respect President Clinton the minute he took office, and so for eight years all of them declined to observe proper protocol in his presence.  Moreover, no officer ever objected to this behavior, and not one member of the Presidential entourage ever noticed or reported it. The best way to answer this one would be to ask a Marine.  So we did: If the question is "Did the Marines who greeted the President willfully show disrespect by failing to execute a   "facing" movement after the salute?" the answer is no.  Proper protocol is for the Marine to snap a salute to the President. The President may or may not return the salute at his discretion. If the President returns the salute, the Marine immediately "cuts" or "posts" by bringing his arm sharply down to his side from the salute and remaining at a position of attention. If the President does not return the salute, the Marine will wait until the President passes him, then he will cut and remain at a position of attention. This is the protocol when greeting a senior officer, including the President.  With the new Presidency comes a changing of the Presidential Detail. The new command of the Presidential Detail may have chosen to add a facing movement to the protocol. This is at the complete discretion of the command. A Marine does not have the luxury of choosing whether or not he follows proper protocol. He is given an order and he follows it to the letter. If the order does not include a facing movement, the facing movement will not occur. If the order includes a facing movent, the facing movement occurs. It is that simple. Whether or not this movement becomes a standard part of protocol remains to be seen.  Marines do not act as individuals, we act as a team. Marines follow procedure and protocol. The Marines you saw followed their orders. That is a Marine. This piece was also refuted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Snappy little story. It has only two problems:   "It's absolutely false," says Staff Sgt. Keith Milks of the public affairs office at Marine Corps headquarters.   If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter "are chosen for their professionalism." In a phone interview, Milks said crew members of HM-1 - Marine One, the presidential helicopter - had followed the same protocol with Clinton that they used for all presidents, to wit:  The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the debarking president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away," Milks said. Even if one dislikes the man who is currently President, protocol dictates that he be shown the proper respect in order not to dishonor the office of President of the United States. Marines know that as well as anyone.  Additional information:        Presidential Tradition   (RonaldReagan.com)   Last updated:  27 January 2007    Sources:   Levins, Harry.  "Don't Believe Your E-Mail: The Marines Didn't Show More Respect to Bush Than Clinton."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  10 March 2001  (p. 2). In May 2021, an old and false claim was resurrected about Facebook friends. It claimed that copying and pasting a message with the code "OO5251839" would show a Facebook user's posts to old friends. It would also purportedly allow users to see posts from friends that maybe hadn't appeared in their News Feeds for years. old and false claim message The purported Facebook code began with two letters: "OO5251839." Some variations may have started with zeroes: "005251839."   Posts that soared in popularity in mid-2021 began with: "Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook  OO5251839 Works!!" Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook...OO5251839 Works!! I have a whole new profile. I see posts from people I didn't see anymore. Facebook's new algorithm picks the same people - around 25-who will see your posts. Hold your finger anywhere in this post and click " copy ". Go to your page where it says " what's on your mind". Tap your finger anywhere in the empty field. Click paste. This is going to circumvent the system. Hello new and old friends! Hello Drop a single hello, thanks! PLEASE SAY HELLO IF YOU SEE THIS. Hello to all! However, this "OO5251839" message had no impact on the Facebook algorithm. Some Facebook users might have thought that the "OO5251839" message worked if they received comments under their posts. However, if this was the case, the explanation is simple. might have thought worked received comments The copy-and-paste message asked friends to say "hello." It would not be a huge surprise that some of the poster's friends saw the message and responded "hello." It's also likely that the more comments a post received, the better it might rank in the News Feeds of friends. As more "hello" comments racked up, it's probably going to show to more friends. Copy-and-paste Facebook rumors have been circulating about as long as Facebook has been around. The "OO5251839" message was not the first time that Facebook users copied and pasted posts that were said to avoid or protect against unwanted aspects of the Facebook platform. For example, in the past we covered a false claim about "copy and paste" and "don't share" messages. We also reported about a dubious warning in regards to Facebook and Instagram purportedly making all posts public. copy and paste" and "don't share making all posts public In sum, the "OO5251839" Facebook message did not circumvent Facebook's algorithm or change anything about a user's Facebook friends. When the governmentsjobs reportfor May offered a bleak picture of the economy, with employers adding just 69,000 jobs in May, U.S. Rep. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, and other lawmakers expressed their frustrations, often in very partisan terms.The report said the unemployment rate edged up slightly to 8.2 percent, from 8.1 percent in April, and Black issued a press release that among other things said the prospects for unemployed or underemployed Americans finding full-time work are not very good after 40 straight months of unemployment at 8 percent or higher.We know the unemployment has remained stubbornly high, but has it really been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months?For the purposes of this ruling, we're only going to look closely at the statistics Black cited and stay out of the political blame game. Suffice to say, its not hard to find Republicans blaming Democratic policies and Democrats blaming Republican obstruction for the inability to move the economy closer to full employment.We called Blacks office and asked them to back up the claim. Her spokeswoman, Allison Huff, pointed us to achartcompiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the gold standard for unemployment statistics.According to the bureau, the last time unemployment was below 8 percent was in January 2009, when it was 7.8 percent -- it then spiked quickly to 8.3 percent in February of 2009 and to 9.4 percent by May before topping out at 10.0 percent in October of 2009. It dropped gradually from there, and the May report listing unemployment at 8.2 percent marked the 40th consecutive month it has been at 8 percent or higher.As dismal as that may be, its not the record.The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in astudyin February 2012.In the Great Depression era, unemployment topped 15 percent annually for six straight years, from 1931 to 1936, and never fell below 8.7 percent over 12 years, according toestimatesadopted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In four consecutive years, unemployment exceeded 20 percent a year.Our colleagues at PolitiFact National cited those figures when they rated asFalsea claim by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who said, We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.There is a qualifier, though. The Depression-era unemployment data counted those age 14 and up, not 16 and up (the standard that began in 1948). In addition, monthly unemployment statistics were not kept until 1948 as well. Thus, all statistics during the Great Depression were on an annual basis.Our rulingRep. Black did not go as far as some other Republicans and claim that unemployment is as bad as during the Great Depression. She merely said it has been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months. Based upon the governments own data, we rate her statement as True. Ohio's economic condition is improving. That's good news for Gov. John Kasich, but it comes with an asterisk.An improving economy is also considered good news for President Barack Obama. Kasich, a Republican, backs challenger Mitt Romney. The point came up, as it has before, during a recent Fox News interview.The Democrats are saying one of the big factors helping the president is the auto bailout, particularly in the northern part of the state, host Paul Gigot said, wondering if Kasich's boosting of jobs was helping Obama's campaign.Kasich, as he has before, downplayed the role of the auto recovery.We're up 123,000 jobs over the last year and three-quarters, he said. We're actually, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, down 500 jobs, auto jobs in Ohio.A loss of jobs? PolitiFact Ohio was interested.We looked at figures from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we asked Kasich's office for his sourcing.First, we noted that Kasich, in talking about the last year and three-quarters, was referring to the period from January 2011, when he took office, until August 2012, the last month for which figures were available.BLS figures for Ohio show that total nonfarm employment went in that period from 5,064,600 to 5,187,600 -- an increase of 123,000 jobs, as Kasich stated.In talking about auto jobs in that period, Kasich's staff said he was referring to jobs in the BLS categories of motor vehicle manufacturing and motor vehicle parts manufacturing.The first category saw an increase of 700 jobs from January 2011 to August 2012, from 19,200 to 19,900.In the second and larger category, employment went from 56,000 to 54,800, a loss of 1,200 jobs.That's a net decrease of 500 jobs.So Kasichs numbers are correct. But additional information is needed to clarify his claim.The timeframe Kasich used is an issue in itself, as we have noted before. In talking about Ohio jobs, the governor only used figures that covered his time in office, starting in January 2011. But the first federal aid to the automakers was made in 2008 while Republican President George W. Bush was still in office. It continued in early 2009 under Obama.The auto industry hit bottom in June 2009, when vehicle manufacturing jobs in Ohio dropped to 14,200, down from 23,800 jobs one year earlier. By the time Kasich took office, after the auto bailouts, that number had increased by 5,000 jobs. That isn't reflected in the governor's tally.Parts manufacturing, down 1,200 jobs since Kasich took office, is up 3,900 jobs from the trough of June 2009.It is also worth noting that the figures the governor cited reflect only direct jobs in the auto industry. Some industry analysts, such as the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, also look at two other categories of employment in the industry -- intermediate and spin-off -- in considering the impact auto manufacturing has on the economy. Under that gauge, job growth in other businesses that have a connection to the auto industry also would be considered.On the Truth-O-Meter, a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information rates Mostly True. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Charles Francis says Raleigh isnt spending its parks money fairly. Francis, a Democrat, is running for mayor of Raleigh against three-time incumbent Nancy McFarlane, whos unaffiliated. Theyre in a runoff after none of the three candidates  Francis, McFarlane and Republican Paul Fitts  secured the 50 percent of the vote required to win. (McFarlane got 48 percent, Francis got 36 percent and Fitts got 12 percent) In a debate Friday, Francis suggested the city shouldnt focus all of its energy on Dix Park when more basic needs go unaddressed. Dix Park is a 308-acre property just south of downtown Raleigh that the city bought from the state in 2014 and plans to develop into a destination recreation spot. Its not right that there are parks in Southeast Raleigh that still dont have air conditioning in the gym, he said. Weve got to have equity in the way we approach our parks. Southeast Raleigh, the citys lone predominantly black area, hasnt enjoyed the same economic success as other areas of the city where businesses are opening and property values are rising. Francis grew up there and is campaigning on the idea that the city should be doing more for the area. A recent PolitiFact analysis of the Oct. 10 election showed Francis got his most fervent support in Southeast Raleigh. And he has previously talked about howthose voters could swing the election. There are 80,000 black voters in Raleigh, Francis said at a forum in September. McFarlane normally wins with 25,000 to 30,000 votes. If only a quarter of African-American voters vote  and vote the right way  were going to win. Given the city's budget is $919 million, PolitiFact wondered whether there are, indeed, gyms in Southeast Raleigh that dont have air conditioning. What we found Turns out, the city controls 23 gyms at 19 venues. And yes, there are three gyms in southeast Raleigh that dont have air-conditioning units, according to Raleighs parks, recreation and cultural resources department. Biltmore Hills Park, John Chavis Memorial Park and Tarboro Road Park are all located in southeast Raleigh and lack air conditioning units. But thats not the whole story. There are six other Raleigh gyms that also lack air-conditioning. The gyms at Green Road Park, Lions Park in northeast Raleigh, Method Community Park in west Raleigh, Millbrook Exchange Park in north Raleigh and two gyms at Laurel Hills Park in northwest Raleigh also lack air conditioning. Most area gyms have AC There are also four gyms in the Southeast Raleigh area that do have air conditioning: Barwell Road Community Center, Halifax Community Center, Roberts Park Community Center and the Worthdale Community Center. The city says it didnt begin putting air-conditioned gyms in park facilities until 2006. It costs about $300,000 to install units in older facilities. The city says its budget for capital projects will fund air-conditioning units in eight of the nine AC-less gyms by 2022. Method Park, the lone outlier, is being considered for AC funding as part of the 2023 budget, the city says. Our ruling Francis said gyms in Southeast Raleigh don't have air conditioning. There are four area gyms that have it and six gyms elsewhere in the city that don't have it. That context is important when debating city priorities and Francis didn't elaborate during the televised debate. But he's right: there are three gyms in Southeast Raleigh that don't have AC. We rate his claim Mostly True.