Is Five Guys Closing Down All Restaurant Locations in 2024, as Announced in 2023?
In December 2023, online advertisements were displayed to YouTube users that showed one or more photos of Five Guys restaurant locations. For example, the caption for one ad read, "They're Closing Doors In 2024. Restaurant Chains Closing 2024."  Also, in Google ads that featured the same photos of Five Guys restaurants, the caption was displayed as follows: "They're Closing Doors in 2024. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Fast Food Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." Several other variations of these ads were also displayed online.  The ads appeared to claim that Five Guys would be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. However, this was false. All of the ads led to an article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." The article's page source code indicated that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed 68 different businesses, most that appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. In other words, the article was fairly long. Nowhere in the apparent 68-slide article was Five Guys mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Five Guys restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through 68 slides for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Five Guys by email to ask if they had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/.
Claim:  Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH.  Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years.  HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ????    Origins:  This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not."   graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities.  The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated:  11 August 2011    Fader, Carole.  "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story."   Jacksonville.com.  7 August 2011. There's no evidence that Oprah Winfrey suffered a "tragedy" or died in early May 2022, nor did she endorse keto weight loss gummies. These claims, one of which resembled a death hoax, came from misleading text messages that were sent out to an unknown number of recipients. Oprah Winfrey keto Scammers sent the text messages with the words, "Fans react to the Oprah tragedy." The texts also included a link: Scammers Oprah    We don't recommend trusting text messages like these. Upon clicking the link, we were led to a fraudulent page that was purposely designed to mimic a Time magazine article. In reality, Time.com had nothing to do with the page. This bore similarities to another keto scam that used the image and likeness of "The Price Is Right" host Drew Carey, which we previously reported on days before publishing this story. Time magazine Time.com The Price Is Right Drew Carey reported The fake Time.com article mentioned nothing of Winfrey having died or suffered a tragedy, as the text messages were nothing more than misleading clickbait. The article falsely claimed Winfrey had personally endorsed keto weight loss gummies such as Keto Start ACV, Gemini Keto, Kwazi Keto Gummies, Slim Mediq Keto Gummies, Trim Life Keto + ACV Gummies, and perhaps others. It used both her image and likeness to sell the products. Winfrey Winfrey    Winfrey did not endorse any of these keto weight loss gummy products, nor did she die or suffer a tragedy in early May 2022. We noticed that the product name changed in the article when we refreshed. This perhaps indicated that the product name was rotated on a timed basis or that specific product names showed up in specific locations, depending on the user's IP address. Basically, the fake Winfrey endorsement was used for more than one keto gummies product. The articles on genuinesmother.com and newsurvey22offer.com began as follows: Oprah Launches First-Ever "Weight Loss Gummy" in Partnership with Weight Watchers After Being Forced to Lose 60 LBS in Just Weeks (Time) - In an insightful 1-on-1 interview, one of the world's most prominent talk show host reveals how she forced Weight Watchers to create a transformational weight loss product the world has never seen before. Gifted host, and business genius, Oprah Winfrey, made headlines after bringing the first ever "Weight Loss Gummy" to the market on live TV last week in memory of her heart failure just last year. Ever since Oprah was forced to lose 60 lbs due to her heart failure risk, Winfrey and her team have been working alongside the team at Weight Watchers to develop a better weight loss product that helps people quickly lose weight and keep it off for good. Oprah Winfrey Despite what's mentioned in the article, we found no evidence that Winfrey had suffered heart failure in 2021, nor did we find any data on Weight Watchers supposedly creating keto weight loss gummies. Both of these claims appeared to have been fabricated. Winfrey Weight Watchers The article went on to make the baseless claim that the long-running program "The Oprah Winfrey Show" had been "canceled because the producers were not happy with" her "weight and appearance." It also claimed that Winfrey appeared on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" to promote the keto weight loss gummies that had supposedly been created by Weight Watchers. This also was false. Winfrey Ellen DeGeneres Weight Watchers The end of the page claimed that Winfrey herself was offering a "free" bottle of keto weight loss gummies to readers, whether that product be Keto Start ACV, Gemini Keto, Kwazi Keto Gummies, Slim Mediq Keto Gummies, Trim Life Keto + ACV Gummies, or another one. The article said, "The only thing you'll need to pay for is the shipping rate, which is less than $6!" Winfrey However, we read through the terms and conditions pages for the various products, which were not easy to find. The fine print said that purchasing a "free" bottle of the keto weight loss gummies enrolled customers in a "trial," "program," or "subscription" that would eventually charge the full cost on a monthly basis. One product's terms and condition page said the charges would occur "every 30 days after the initial purchase." In order to cancel a recurring order, customers would first need to contact the company to initiate the process. However, that might be a problem for anyone who opted for a "free" bottle of Kwazi Keto Gummies. In the terms and conditions for that specific product, it listed no phone number. The contact page on the Kwazi Keto Gummies website showed only this email address: care@buykwazi.com. Even worse, the area that was supposed to show the return shipping address was left blank, making it more difficult for people to get their money back:    A package won't get very far without a shipping address. We contacted Kwazi Keto Gummies to ask about the absence of the phone number and shipping address. Within minutes, the page with the fake Time.com article that used Winfrey's image and likeness changed to a fake keto endorsement from the cast of "Shark Tank," which we reported on before. It then switched to another scam page that claimed singer-songwriter Adele Adkins, better known simply as Adele, had also endorsed keto weight loss gummies. All of this was false. reported Adele In sum, no, there's no evidence that Winfrey suffered a "tragedy" or died in early May 2022, nor did she endorse keto weight loss gummies that had been created by Weight Watchers. All of this was misleading and false. Winfrey Weight Watchers Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Donald Trump Mike Pence Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris  the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. George Floyd For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Factba.se transcription Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund  do you know that is?  which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office.  Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: "Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage." Sen. Tom Cotton tweet   Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. one conservative website Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.  including many celebrities more than $30 million accounts "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota," she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. @MNFreedomFund   In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media  or via any other public statement  that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed "Minnesota Freedom Fund"  debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Federal Election Commission Center for Responsive Politics Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: "No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris." We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) has pledged Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case  or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest  they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: inequities states Weve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge  and we wont now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness  People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice  Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyds death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings  whether chaotic or peaceful  did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail  and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. American Bail Coalition The Washington Post "We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way," the MFF website said. "[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising werent detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail." said However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. AK-47-style mini Draco pistol woman The Washington Post news reports Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July  a case that was unrelated to the protests  was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to "strengthen our internal procedures" to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. news reports statement In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters "get out of jail and do more damage," like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. Hoping to add some political muscle to Republican John Kasichs bid for the White House, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed the Ohio governor for president during a rally in Columbus this week. But did Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican, bend the truth when he described Ohios financial turnaround under Kasich? In hisendorsement speech, Schwarzenegger called Kasich an action hero, saying that when Kasich became governor in 2011, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. We decided to check that claim. Kasich has made similar statements throughout his campaign for president, and highlighted thisfiscal transformationon his website. I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus, Kasich said during the Republican presidential debate in Cleveland last year. The national PolitiFact team took adeeper lookat Kasichs claim last August. Its very similar to Schwarzeneggers claim. Heres what it found: An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this as a hole rather than a deficit. Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. Schwarzenegger used the term deficit, which we interpreted as a minor misstatement rather than an attempt to deceive. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. Ohios Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. The surplus remained above $2 billion this week, said a spokesman for the budget office. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. Schwarzeneggers claim strongly implies Kasich played a central role in the turnaround, though it doesnt explicitly link the two together. But its important to remember that Kasich took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate.As of December, the national unemployment rate was 5 percent and the rate in Ohio was 4.8 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling In his endorsement speech, Schwarzenegger said that when Kasich became governor, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the starting point should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich and Schwarzenegger didnt pull that figure out of thin air, though it certainly was high by historical standards. Kasich also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statements are accurate but need additional information, so we rate them Mostly True. In early-to-mid-March 2019, photographs of President Donald Trump and members of his family posing with Li Yang, a political donor and spa entrepreneur, circulated on social media. The images were used to link the Trumps with a sting operation in Florida. link Yang, who posted a widely seen selfie taken at Trump's 2019 Super Bowl party to her Facebook account, once owned what is now the Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was one of 25 men arrested in February 2019, accused of soliciting sex there in a sweeping, human-trafficking sting that targeted that site and others. selfie sting Kraft, a self-described friend of Trump, faces two counts of misdemeanor solicitation, to which he has pleaded not guilty. friend not guilty Yang no longer owns the establishment in which police say Kraft was caught on camera paying for sex. She has not been charged with a crime. camera Nevertheless, the images of Yang, Trump and members of his family were picked up and used to create an inaccurate meme claiming she is the spa's owner, which was shared with the nearly 8 million followers on the Facebook page belonging to Occupy Democrats on 8 March 2019.Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook page sarcastically discourages followers to share the meme, its administrators also added a "correction" in the post above the image: Occupy Democrats   Yang was swept into the lurid story after images of her with Trump and his family members surfaced on her Facebook page, which, as the Miami Herald reported, "raised questions about who can gain access to the president at his resorts and other private businesses, as well at official venues like fundraisers." reported Some news stories linked Yang to the day spa raided by police by describing her as the "founder," although when the site changed ownership in 2012, its name also changed. Yang sold the business, which at the time was called the Tokyo Day Spa, to Hua Zhang, who changed the name of the establishment to Orchids of Asia upon incorporation in 2012, according to Florida state business records. Zhang, 58, has been charged with prostitution-related counts and has pleaded not guilty. As the Associated Press reported: incorporation not guilty Yang, who goes by Cindy, wasnt charged in the multiagency anti-human trafficking operation that resulted in 25 arrests and shut down 10 Asian day spas in south Florida. None of the spas are registered to Yang or her family. She sold the Jupiter spa around 2013 to Hua Zhang, who has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and running a house of prostitution. Yangs family still owns several south Florida spas. The familys Tokyo Day Spa branches have attracted the attention of at least two police agencies, the Herald reported. Yang told the Herald, which published the photo of her with Trump on Friday (March 8), that she and her family havent broken the law. She said she is out of the business, would soon be relocating to Washington and didnt want any negative news media attention. published the photo of her with Trump Occupy Democrats (OD) Co-Founder Omar Rivero told us in an email he felt he had no choice but to leave the meme live with the correction added to the post. Once an image is posted on Facebook, it can't be replaced or edited. If the image were to continue to circulate with the error even after after OD had deleted it from their page, and if Facebook were to flag the image as false, the deletion would result in a penalty for the page.  "Its a really weird thing that doesn't make sense to me either," he explained. "Normally I would just delete it but I can't risk another hit to our reach [due to a Facebook penalty] over a minor mistake." Blaskey, Sarah, etal."Trump Cheered Patriots to Super Bowl Victory With Founder of Spa Where Kraft Was Busted."
Miami Herald.8 March 2019. Greenlee, Will."Details in Spa Sex, Human Trafficking Released; Neighbor Says Case 'Like a Movie.'"
Treasury Coast Newspapers.20 February 2019. Winter, Tom, and Kesslen, Ben."Patriots Owner Robert Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution."
NBC News.22 February 2019. Nehamas, Nicole, etal."Massage Parlor Magnate Helped Steer Chinese to Trump NYC Fundraiser, Attendee Says."
Miami Herald.9 March 2019. Associated Press."Report: Spa Founder Attended Trumps Super Bowl Party."
8 March 2019. The only way to make New Jersey a more affordable place to live is to have government spend less money, according to Gov. Chris Christie.The Republican governor offered that solution when a man called into a Jan. 22 radio program and expressed concerns about the cost of living in New Jersey. The caller wanted to know the plan for keeping people like him in the state.Christie told the man that property taxes have increased minimally in the last two years, because government spending has been capped. On the state level, spending is now lower than it was under Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in fiscal year 2008, according to Christie.Now were making a difference. Because you know why? Were capping spending, Christie said on New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program. Were saying youve got to spend less, and on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor, who is seeking re-election this year, repeated the state spending claim on Thursday during a campaign stop at Tops Diner in East Newark.Christie is right that state spending in the current fiscal year is lower than the spending level in fiscal year 2008, but the governors claim ignores the fact that spending has still increased with each new state budget since he took office.Lets break down the numbers:For fiscal year 2008, Corzine approved a spending plan of about $33.47 billion, according to state Department of the Treasury reports. Final state spending that year ended slightly higher, at $33.61 billion, according to department reports.In June 2012, Christie signed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates about $31.65 billion in state spending.So, the governors current budget marks a nearly $2 billion decrease in state spending as compared to fiscal year 2008.But just because state spending is lower than it was five years ago, doesnt mean it hasnt increased on Christies watch.In his first budget after taking office in January 2010, Christie approved a roughly $28.36 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2011. For the next budget year -- fiscal year 2012 -- the governor approved a roughly $29.69 billion budget.That means, in terms of the annual appropriations acts signed by Christie, state spending has increased by about $3.29 billion, or 11.6 percent, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In response to our findings about spending increases during Christie's tenure, Treasury spokesman Bill Quinn said the following in an e-mail: We think your original question has been conclusively answered in the Governors favor as unequivocally true. You are now posing an entirely different inquiry that is not based on what the Governor actually said on the air that led to your fact check.The increased spending since fiscal year 2011 is due in part to the governors policies boosting the states economy, leading to higher tax revenues, according to Quinn. He pointed out how two of the major areas of higher spending have been in education and pension contributions.Quinn added that the tough decisions needed to put the state budget on sound, responsible fiscal footing in fiscal years 10 and 11 allowed us to grow and make key investments in FY 12 and 13.Our rulingIn response to a caller during New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program, Christie claimed that on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor is correct in that the fiscal year 2013 budget is nearly $2 billion less than the level of state spending under Corzine in fiscal year 2008. But Christies claim ignores the fact that state spending has still increased during his tenure.That means the governors statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump:  The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page  However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses  (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987  a day commonly known as Black Monday  when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia.  "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia.  "Black Monday (1987)."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press.  "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011."
  Snopes.com.  28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan.  "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?"
  Snopes.com.  8 February 2018.