Missing Child: Ember Graham
FACT CHECK: Is an infant named Ember Graham missing from her Happy Valley, California, home?      Claim:  An infant named Ember Graham is missing from her Happy Valley, California, home.    Example:   [Collected via Facebook, August 2015] My Ember is STILL missing. She went missing July 2, 2015 from Happy Valley, CA. She was six months old, wearing a size 2 Kirkland diaper. She has brown hair, and distinct brown downturned eyes. She is approximately 15 pounds and 2' 1". She is now 8 months old. She is a epileptic and needs to take special medication for her seizures, BUT that does not mean she still is not alive, she could survive without it. I'm begging anyone with any sort of information to please come forward! It could even be anonymously. I just want my baby back! I NEED her back. You could drop her off at any hospital, church, or fire station. Anywhere public. Or you could call anonymously by dialing *67 before you enter in the number. There is a $10,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the wearabouts of my little girl. Please call the Nor Cal top line at (530) 378-4491. Anonoymously or not! Please help me bring my baby home. Even if you have no information, please share her picture out there and tell everyone you know. We're relying on the public and the community for help now, we have spent every single day searching the surrounding areas and have found nothing, we have run out of real estate. Please help find my baby. #northerncalifornia #california #emberskye #missing #baby #missingbaby #8monthsold #littlegirl #epilepsy #theresacaputo #nancygrace #dateline #missingpersons #dr.phil #pleasecomehome  Origins: On 25 August 2015, Facebook user JamieLee Tomlin-Graham published the above-quoted appeal to her personal Facebook page, seeking leads in the case of her missing infant daughter, Ember Graham. published A number of "missing child" pleas are outdated, inaccurate, or otherwise misstated on social media, but this one is relevant and current: Ember Graham indeed disappeared from her home in California in July 2015 and remains missing. Six-month-old Graham was last seen on 2 July 2015, and early in the investigation Shasta County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Pat Kropholler said father Matthew Graham was a person of interest in her disappearance: missing child Graham "In the case of Ember Graham the sole person of interest in her disappearance still remains with her father, Matthew Graham," Kropholler said in the press release. "The Sheriffs Office Major Crimes Unit has investigated tips received from the public and all other possible angles of a stranger abduction." "There is no evidence that a third party was involved, including anyone within the family," he said. "The motive of why he abandoned her or what lead to him disposing of her body died with him when he confronted officers with deadly force in Dunsmuir, California after he had carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint," Kropholler stated. A pacifier found on the side of a road in Ono, California, on 10 July 2015 was tested and determined to be baby Ember's. On 13 July Matthew Graham was killed in a shootout with police, an event that further complicated the investigation into Ember Graham's whereabouts: pacifier event Graham was spotted by Shasta County and Siskiyou County deputies and California Highway Patrol officers in Dunsmuir. He was shot and killed, according to the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. After the babys disappearance, authorities said Graham showed no remorse and didn't ask how they planned to find his daughter; they said he refused to submit to a voice stress test and asked for a lawyer. Investigators said they also found it tough to believe that a stranger could break into Grahams 25-foot camper trailer undetected and snatch Ember away, as he claimed. The home is surrounded by two fences and protected by guard dogs; the room where Ember slept apparently has no working door and can only be pried open with a screwdriver, which would make a lot of noise, detectives said. Pages on Facebook and Twitter have been created by Ember Graham's family to assist in the search for the child, and anyone with information has been asked to call the Shasta County Sheriffs Major Crimes Unit at (530) 245-6135. Facebook Twitter Last updated:  1 September 2015 Originally published: 1 September 2015
On July 5, 2021, the U.S. women's soccer team defeated Mexico 4-0 in their final match before the Olympic Games. While many cheered America's accomplishment, conservative commentators started to share a video along with the claim that the team had "disrespected" the 98-year-old World War II veteran, Pete DuPr, who performed the national anthem on his harmonica.  The controversy was a bit unclear from the start. Dinesh D'Souza, for instance, claimed that the players had turned their backs on the veteran during the performance. Richard Grenell, former acting director of U.S. national intelligence, claimed that they turned their back on the flag.  Dinesh D'Souza Richard Grenell,   Both of these messages (as well as the articles, videos, and additional tweets pushing this claim) mischaracterized the actions of the U.S. women's soccer team.  While the video (below) does appear to show some awkward positioning (some players were facing forward while some were facing to the side), this was not a protest or a gesture of disrespect against the flag or the veteran. When DuPr began his performance, some players opted to face him, while others turned to face an American flag at the end of the stadium.  When you watch the video below, pay attention to the direction the audience members were facing behind DuPr . Many of them were angled away from the harmonica-playing veteran and toward a flag at the end of the stadium. This is the same direction that the players were facing. As the flag is a bit difficult to see in the video (since it is only shown at the far-end of the field), here's a photograph from sports reporter Jeff Kassouf that shows the location of the flag for reference: photograph from sports reporter Jeff Kassouf  Here's a video of DuPr's performance of the National Anthem from ESPN:  Many of the people claiming that the U.S. team "disrespected" this veteran or the flag noted that the Mexican team was facing forward. It's worth noting that the members of Mexico's soccer team were facing their flag (in the same direction as the U.S. players) when the national anthem of Mexico was played.     The claim that the U.S. Soccer team disrespected this veteran is also contradicted by the fact that the players signed a ball for DuPr after his performance. Meghan Rapinoe, for example, who can be seen in the video facing toward the flag, not DuPr, can be glimpsed in this video signing a ball for the veteran:   Some U.S. soccer players, such as midfielder Cari Lloyd, have also disputed this claim on social media:  The U.S. soccer team also posted a statement on Twitter:  The claim that the U.S. women's soccer team was protesting during veteran DuPr's National Anthem performance is not true. The players did not turn away from this veteran. They turned toward the U.S. flag. Claim:  Princess Cruises has ceased making stops in Israel.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2010] Yesterday, 6/2/2010, the Pacific Princess, carrying 700 passengers, canceled a stop at Ashdod, Israel . Instead, they informed the passengers they would stop in Egypt as an alternative. Princess is now bowing to pressure and boycotting Israel . Please pass this on to all Jewish Americans in order to let them know that there are alternatives to Princess.  Origins:  On 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos stormed the six-ship Freedom Flotilla in international waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip as it carried some 10,000 tons of aid and up to 700 human rights activists to the Palestinian enclave. In that melee, nine activists were killed and dozens were injured. Hundreds of those being conveyed on the flotilla were jailed and then deported. The attack on the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid convoy served to heighten tensions in that area of the world. In response to the potential for retaliatory attacks on Israel, Princess Cruises canceled the 2 June 2010 Pacific Princess call on the port of Ashdod, Israel. The 1 June 2010 call upon the Israeli port of Haifa went ahead as scheduled, providing passengers the opportunity for a full day of touring Galilee and Nazareth. Princess Cruises said of their decision that: Based on careful review of the situation and information provided by the US State Department and other sources, we were concerned about potential violence in Ashdod in reaction to the incident.  We made the decision strictly in the best interest of the safety of our passengers and crew, to cancel the call in Ashdod the following day. Azamara Club Cruises also canceled a planned visit to that city, routing its Azamara Quest directly to Haifa rather than making the planned 7 June 2010 call upon Ashdod. Pacific Princess is scheduled to visit the ports of Haifa and Ashdod at the end of June 2010 during its 12-day Mediterranean East cruise (which departs from Venice on 20 June 2010). The line fully expects to maintain the published itinerary. Additional information:     Statement from Princess Cruises   (Princess Cruises)  Last updated:  14 June 2010    Sloan, Gene.  "Princess Cruises Cancels Call in Israel in Wake of Attack on Aid Flotilla."   USA Today.  1 June 2010.    JTA.  "Princess Cruises Boycott Tale Is Debunked."   14 June 2010. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True. Many homeowners are currently receiving receipts stamped Paid in the mail for their 2018 property tax bills. Whether the bill goes up or down each year is of paramount importance to homeowners. So politicians are also eager to weigh in on the issue. Today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Allowing taxpaying to keep more of their hard-earned money has been and will continue to be a top priority, state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, said Jan. 11, 2019 in atweet. Property taxesare levied on most types of real estate -- including homes, businesses, and parcels of land. The amount owed depends on the fair market value of the property, as determined by the local assessor. Is Nygren right? Are property taxes lower today than they were in 2010? The evidence The year 2010, of course, is not an arbitrary starting point. It marks the year Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and when the GOP won full control of the Legislature. Democrat Tony Evers is now in the governors office, after topping Walker in the 2018 election. When asked for backup to the claim, Nygrens chief of staff Nathan Schwanz pointed to a January 2019 report from theLegislative Fiscal Bureauon median property tax payments in the state. The nonpartisan fiscal bureau is considered the gold-standard on such financial and budget issues. Here is its breakdown for the years in question: 2010 - 2011-- $2,963 2011- 2012 -- $2,953 2012 - 2013 -- $2,943 2013 - 2014 -- $2,926 2014 - 2015 -- $2,831 2015 - 2016 -- $2,849 2016 - 2017 -- $2,852 2017 - 2018 -- $2,876 2018 - 2019 -- $2,870 (preliminary estimate)  So, the 2018-19 total is, indeed, lower than the 2010-11 total. The fiscal bureau regularly does such estimates, and they are routinely cited by politicians of both stripes.But its important to note they are an illustration -- some people's property taxes went down, some went up. Even if your home value was right at the statewide average, your tax bill might have been higher due to various factors, including levies in individual communities. Past ratings Meanwhile, we have checked variations of this claim in the past: *July 15, 2015: Walker claimed that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But we found the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. Our rating:Mostly True. *Jan. 13, 2017, Walker said property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. Our rating:True. *June 7, 2017, after a lower than 2010 claim from Walker, we wrote that fiscal bureau estimates of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued home found the tax was indeed lower. That time we found the drop in residential property taxes was due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less revenue. Our rating:Mostly True. Finally, we also used the Walk-O-Meter to monitor a promise by Walker to continue to reduce the tax burden on working families and seniors every year he was in office. This, of course, applied to all taxes -- not just property taxes. We rated the pledgePromise Kept. Are there any wrinkles this time? Yes. According to the fiscal bureau, the change over the latest two years -- from 2017-18 to 2018-19 -- is a net decrease for homeowners, even though the gross tax bill is projected to increase. Whats behind the difference? Funding for the lottery and gaming property tax credit increased by about $66 million, which contributed to the decrease in the median net tax bill. Where Wisconsin ranks To be sure, Wisconsin property taxes remain among the highest in the United States. Various property tax trackers place Wisconsin in the top 10, sometimes in the top five. The personal finance websiteWalletHubanalyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The website also used rates to obtain the dollar amount paid in real estate taxes on a median-valued home in each state. It ranked Wisconsin as the fifth worst state for property taxes. With the median home value sitting at $167,000, the typical tax bill comes to $3,257, according to WalletHub. Filling out the rest of thetop fivefor 2018 were: Median Home valueTaxes New Jersey: $316,400            $7,601 Illinois:  $174,800                  $4,058 New Hampshire: $239,700     $5,241 Connecticut: $269,300            $5,443 Wisconsin: $167,000              $3,257 But Nygrens claim was not about the states rank. So that does not factor into our rating. Our rating Nygren said today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Data from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau shows the statement generally rings true. But there have long been wrinkles on these claims -- from declining property values driving the drop to an increase in commercial and manufacturing property values shifting the burden from homeowners. Those sorts of factors are still in play, this time with tax credits contributing to latest decrease. And the rating is still Mostly True. During ongoing national debate over a novel policy of separating families at the border, a photograph circulated (originally from Joshua Feuerstein, a self-styled "American evangelist, Internet and social media personality" who last made headlines in 2015 when he manufactured a so-called "Christmas cup controversy") that purportedly depicted a room full of immigrant children that former President Barack Obama had supposedly removed from their parents' custody: novel policy a photograph circulated self-styled Christmas cup controversy immigrant children The attached text read:As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #shareSome versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image:Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States:The meme's text read:INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOOHey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!!The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities:Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo:Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year.The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others.Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base:The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration.  The attached text read: As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #share Some versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image: Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States: described   The meme's text read: INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP 140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOO Hey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!! The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities: published Breitbart Breitbart unaccompanied Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil. The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo: National Review Immigration Bedlam Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year. The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others. widely reported Houston Chronicle Splinter News Los Angeles Times Mashable Reuters Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base: The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care. ... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported. Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration. family separation DeRuy, Emily and Jorge Rivas.  "Disturbing Photos Allegedly Show Texas Border Patrol Facility Packed With Immigrant Children."
  Splinter.  6 June 2014. Darby, Brandon.  "Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused In Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed."
  Breitbart.  5 June 2014. Hennessy-Fiske, Molly.  "Hundreds Of Migrant Youths Held At Texas Military Base."
  Los Angeles Times.  5 June 2014. Murdock, Deroy.  "Immigration Bedlam."
  National Review.   13 June 2014. Parker, Kolten.  "Leaked Photos Show Immigrant Children Packed In Crowded Texas Border Facilities."
  Houston Chronicle.  6 June 2014. Roug, Louise.  "How The U.S. Border Became A Humanitarian Crisis."
  Mashable.  8 July 2014. Reuters.  "U.S. To Open Third Military Base To Illegal Child Immigrants."
  9 June 2014 Austin voters should doubt mayoral aspirant Mike Martinezs commitment to an affordable city, his opponent in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff maintains. The narrator of a Steve Adler TV ad says that as an Austin City Council member, Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. That statement is made against this visual backdrop:  Source: TV ad from Steve Adler, Austin mayoral candidate,Mike Martinez Record on City Council, posted online Dec. 2, 2014. Martinez has been a council member since June 2006. So its no surprise he would have had a say on taxes and rates charged by the city-owned utilities, though unsaid here is that no single council member controls any such decisions; its been a seven-member body, including the mayor. Martinez also chairs theeight-person boardoverseeing Capital Metro, which provides local bus and limited rail service. So he could have voted on fares charged the elderly. Lets recap Martinezs actions on fares, city taxes and utility rates. Bus fares To our inquiries, Adlers campaign didnt provide comprehensive backup for his ad claim. But by email, spokesman Jim Wick pointed out a September 2010Austin American-Statesmannews storystating the Cap Metro board voted to require bus riders 65 and older to pay 50 cents a ride or $15 for a 31-day bus pass, starting in 2011. The story also said the board was deciding to charge seniors and people with disabilities to ride buses for the first time since 1989. For Capital Metro, spokeswoman Francine Pares told us by email Martinez has been a board member since June 2007 and chairman since January 2010. Pares also confirmed the boards decision to charge the 50-cent fares, though she said that change was adopted at the boards November 2010 gathering, which Martinez didnt attend, she said. According tominutes of the Nov. 10, 2010, board meeting, the six members who were there unanimously approved a resolution authorizing higher fares in part, the resolution said, to generate additional operating revenues while striving to meet growing demand for transportation options. Martinez and another board member were recorded as absent. Pares told us theboard in September 2013approved another increase in senior fares, to 60 cents, effective in 2015. Generally, she said, senior citizens receive 50 percent off regular fares. By phone, Martinez agreed he and fellow board members agreed to charge the fares for elderly residents. But that happened, he said, only after a state panel issued marching orders including a recommendation calling for Capital Metro to raise more money from fares. In a 2010 report, the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended the authority charge a bus fare of 50 cents for groups currently riding free. The commission had said 30 percent of Capital Metros passengers were riding for free and, it noted, the board had rejected proposed fares in 2008 and 2009. In its finalJuly 2011 reporton Capital Metro, the commission said: While fare increases are difficult, requiring only a portion of its ridership to bear the burden of these increases is not equitable or sustainable, especially in bad financial times. Martinez pointed out the sunset review occurred in keeping withlegislation passed into lawby the 2009 Legislature, which wanted Capital Metro to get its finances in order. City taxes On taxes, Wick of Adlers camp offered as backup news stories indicating thatin 2009, Martinez said taxpayers would have to pay a little more in taxes and fees through 2010 to maintain services andin 2010, the council acting to raise the citys property tax rate from 42.09 cents per $100 of property value to 45.71 cents; the city tax on a median value home was expected to increase $52 to $843. Wick followed up by emailing us achart made by Adlers campaignindicating city property taxes on a median-valued home going up on Martinezs watch. For a non-campaign analysis, we turned to the Travis Central Appraisal District; the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, emailed us achartindicating city property taxes on a median-value homestead in 2007 were $715; in 2014, the comparable figure was $1,014. We converted the 2007 figure to 2014 dollars, using afederal inflation calculator. Upshot: Adjusted for inflation, city taxes on a median-value Austin homestead went up $278, or 34 percent, from 2007 through 2014, Martinezs council years. Over those years, according to the district, the median taxable value of an Austin homestead went from $177,257 to $228,032. Adjusting for inflation suggests there was a nearly $18,800, 9 percent, increase. Martinez agreed property owners paid more in taxes in his council tenure, results influenced by surging property values, he said. Still, he said, in five of eight years, council members voted to keep the citys property tax rate the same or to lower it. When the rate was raised, he said, the economy was in recession. For another fact check, the city provided this chart of tax rates, which shows the council raised the rate three times in Martinezs tenure, most recently for 2013,  but cut the rate four times, most recently for 2014. In September 2014, the council left the 2014 rate intact for 2015. Utility rates In 2011,we found Mostly Truea claim that Austin Energy, the city electric utility, was considering its first hike in rates since 1994. The base electric rate, covering staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, hadnt changed since 1994. Meantime, residential customers were paying less for electricity than they once had, taking inflation into account. On June 7, 2012, the council unanimously voted to raise the base rate, theAmerican-Statesmanreported. The news story said: The complicated new rate structure will hit customers in different ways; generally speaking, the larger and more energy-hungry the home, the higher the percentage increase, effective October 2012. A typical home, which uses an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month over the course of a year, will see its monthly bill rise by $8, to $113, according to Austin Energy calculations. A home that uses a lot of electricity would see its monthly bill increase by $59, to $332, the story said. How would Adler have voted? We asked Wick how Adler would have voted on the bus fares, tax and utility rate hikes we confirmed. Theres no simple answer, Wick said by email, but Adler favors free fares for senior citizens. Our ruling Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. Austin residents pay more in taxes and could be paying more for electricity thanks to council actions Martinez supported. He also backed a decision by the Capital Metro board to charge half fares to elderly bus riders who had previously not been charged, though Martinez hardly did this by himself; its worth clarifying, too, that Capital Metro was under pressure to improve its finances and that Martinez missed the vote creating the then-50-cent fare. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Debate over raisingthe minimum wageis heating up. President Obama is advocating for it, Democrats in Congress are promoting it and their Republican counterparts are warning that it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Adding fuel to that fire was Tuesday'sCongressional Budget Office report, which predicted that increasing the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty but cost 500,000 jobs. U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, went on thefloor of the House on Feb. 11to argue that inflation has eroded the value of the minimum wage, now $7.25 per hour, over time. It's been five years since those working for the minimum wage have seen an increase in the minimum wage, and according to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. This is shameful, and we have the responsibility to address growing income inequality by increasing the minimum wage immediately, he said. In other words, a worker in 2014 would need to earn $9.25 an hour to have the same buying power a minimum-wage worker had in 1968. We wondered whether that was true. Cicilline's office wouldn't say what study the congressman was referring to. When we asked Cicilline about it during a Feb. 18 news conference, he said couldn't recall. Instead, his chief of staff said a Google search had just uncovered a June 2013 Huffington Post article headlined, The Minimum Wage Is Worth $2 Less Today Than It Was In 1968: Study. The Huffington Post article citesa study from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington, D.C. think tank funded by organized labor, that quotes the $2 figure but doesn't analyze the minimum wage directly. Instead, it quotesanother EPI studythat did, looking at the minimum wage value from 1968 through 2012. It reports that the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 per hour was essentially worth $9.25 in 2012 dollars, precisely two dollars less than $7.25. But what was the difference when Cicilline gave his speech this month?The latest EPI study, issued Dec. 19 byDavid Cooper, puts that difference at $2.15. When we tried to confirm that calculation by going to theonline inflation calculatorfrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we came up with an amount that was even higher: It said that today's $7.25 minimum wage is worth $3.46 less than in 1968, a much bigger difference than what Cicilline cited. Why the difference? The online calculator, Cooper said, uses the conventional Consumer Price Index, known as CPI-U. He and other researchers use a variant of that, called theCPI-U-RS, which tries to take the modifications that have been made to the CPI-U over the years and apply them to previous years. Although the government doesn't claim one index is better than another, he said the CPI-U-RS is designed to do a better job of accurately capturing the changing value of the minimum wage. If you adjust an old minimum wage for inflation using the traditional CPI, its value appears much higher today. In summary, Cicilline says he was quoting a report, but we're not sure what report that was. There is a report that supports his claim, as his staff noted, but it's out of date. He said the buying power of the minimum wage in 1968 was, in effect, $2 higher than its value today. The difference in 2013 dollars, by one measure, is actually $2.15. That's pretty close. By another measure, it's even more: $3.46. His underlying point -- that the minimum wage has significantly less buying power than it had 45 years ago -- is correct, and the erosion in the minimum wage is even more dramatic if you use the conventional cost of living index. We rate his statementMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) We stop for red lights and go on green lights almost by instinct, so deeply steeped into us are our traffic rules. Just as we rarely give thought to the possibility of meeting a car traveling the wrong way on a one-way street, so too do we rarely pause to wonder where our traffic laws came from or who invented the crosswalk. Meet William Phelps Eno (1858-1945), an innovator who long ago earned the sobriquet "the Father of Traffic Safety."  William Phelps Eno Born in New York City, this forward-thinking man observed the massive traffic jams of his era and from those observations formulated solutions that carried over from the days of horses and carriages into the automotive age. In 1900 he penned the treatise "Reform in Our Street Traffic Urgently Needed," which immediately established him as a traffic safety expert, a mantle he was to wholeheartedly embrace.   In 1903 he developed the world's first city traffic code (for New York City) and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris.     It was William Phelps Eno who invented stop signs and who envisioned one-way streets, taxi stands, traffic circles, and pedestrian safety islands. He wrote the first manual of police traffic regulations, and it was he who designed the circular traffic pattern that courses around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. stop signs In 1921 he established the Eno Transportation Foundation, a non-profit study center located in Washington, D.C.  The Foundation is dedicated to improving all modes of transportation  ground, air, and water.  Eno was always a great fan of horseback riding but did not place all that much faith in the automobile, thinking it but a fad. He never learned to drive, and when events in his life necessitated car travel, he relied on a chauffeur.  William Phelps Eno's penchant for peculiarity outlived him. In 1996 his old home in Westport, Connecticut, came under the steady assault of determined bargain hunters who misunderstood the "bargain" they so intently pursued. Eno's 32-room mansion and the land it stood on had been sold for $1.5 million, but the buyer wanted the choice waterfront land for the purpose of subdividing it, not for the 119-year-old building that stood upon it. The old manse was to be razed to make way for new housing. Rather than see old building torn down, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation stepped in and offered it for $1 to anyone who would cart William Phelps Eno's home away and give it a good home elsewhere. The costs of barging the mansion to a new site and restoring it were estimated at $500,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. The Today Show helped publicize the scheme, but unfortunately people heard only what they wanted to hear: that they could have a mansion for $1. Everything about the land not coming with it and the building having to be carted away and set up elsewhere went in one ear and out the other. The property was overrun by folks determined to look it over, and they showed up at all hours of day and night, often necessitating calls to the police to have them removed. The previous owner (who was living in its carriage house) was driven to distraction by the never-ending stream of phone calls and letters pleading for the house. "Keep Out" signs had to be posted, and the road leading to the mansion had to be chained off to keep dollar-waving people out. Meanwhile, the Trust's office was also fielding hundreds of calls and letters, some coming from those who thought this was a lottery, and one from a gal who thought the mansion was a prize offered for an essay-writing contest. Even utter chaos eventually dies down. Hundreds upon hundreds of inquiries later, no one really wanted the house. It was ultimately demolished in July 1997. Meyers, Kendra.   Will a Mansion Find a Home Before All the Doorknobs Are Gone?
  The New York Times.   4 February 1996   (13CN; p. 2).
 Wallace, Irving.   Significa.
  New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1983   (pp. 22-23). A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017: circulating various @realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn  Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017 June 9, 2017  The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." Dumb and Dumber sloth captions However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)" original Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to uglify the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump, Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right): Claim:  Amazon is giving out free $200 gift cards to Facebook users.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Amazon, it appears, is offering a $200 gift card if you "like" their page and comment about your appreciation.  Is this for real?  How exactly would they pay up??  If you like it, it posts to your facebook stream and other people see it and automatically trust you and click on like and share as well. Origins:  In October 2014, a fraudulent offer for a free $200 Amazon gift card started circulating on Facebook.  The message contained a link which redirected bargain hunters to a website adorned with Amazon's logo. That website, however, had no affiliation with the retail giant. It was also marked as "High Risk" by Scam Adviser. Scam Adviser  The $200 Amazon gift card scam is very similar to recent schemes which targeted Costco and Kroger shoppers. While each scam has slight variations, they all feature three main components. First, they require people to like or share the message on Facebook in an attempt to spread the scam around the Internet. Second, they direct people to complete a fraudulent survey which extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a free monetary gift card.  Costco Kroger The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's a link to their privacy policy.  Watch out for a reward that's 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. This isn't the first time that a Facebook scam has targeted Amazon shoppers. A similar scheme circulated around the social networking site in 2011 and again in 2012.  2011 2012   Last updated:  23 October 2014