Did Tampered-With Conditioner Cause a Wisconsin Woman to Lose Her Hair?
In late summer 2019, multiple news accounts reported that a Wisconsin woman had endured a frightening encounter with a supermarket product tamperer who, the articles said, had added hair remover to a bottle of conditioner, causing the woman's hair to fall out. On Aug. 1, the website Distractify published an article under the headline "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair," reporting that: article Taffy Jo Trimm [sic] and her daughter Ashley Rose recently bought this bottle of Pantene from a Walmart in New Richmond, Wisconsin. In a now-viral Facebook post, Taffy explains that the bottle must have been tampered with. Someone must have mixed in Nair or some other hair removal product with the conditioner because, when Taffy's daughter Ashley used the conditioner, her hair started falling out. In clumps. How horrifying is that? 'Attention New Richmond Wisconsin Walmart shoppers,' Taffy's Facebook post reads, "be aware of shampoo and conditioner you buy there as my daughter Ashley Rose bought some two days ago and someone mixed Nair in her conditioner bottle!!!! As I speak she is losing hair and crying!! Conditioner below this conditioner [sic] is supposed to be white. It is an ugly pink color." Other reports went beyond the parameters of that single purported incident, claiming without evidence that it was part of a broader trend. The websites Popbuzz and Rare.us both published articles using headlines that stated "People are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo," while one Twitter user posted a viral tweet that claimed "people" were mixing Nair into shampoo and conditioner bottles: Popbuzz Rare.us tweet Please check your hair products before you buy them, people are mixing Nair into shampoo & conditioner in the store smh pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL  ???? ??????? (@shandiditbetter) July 30, 2019 July 30, 2019   We have been unable to verify the claim that the woman in question lost her hair involuntarily as a result of exposure to a substance deliberately added to a bottle of hair conditioner before she purchased it from Walmart. The details follow. The narrative began on July 28, when Taffy Jo Timm wrote on Facebook that her daughter, 21-year-old Ashley Robinson, was "losing her hair and crying" after using conditioner she had purchased two days earlier from the Walmart in New Richmond. Timm's post was accompanied by a photograph of a bottle of Pantene conditioner and a photograph showing what appeared to be black hair deposited in a shower:  Later that night, Robinson herself posted the same photograph of black hair, along with a brief account of what had happened earlier that evening: account "... Got in shower, shampoo [sic] and conditioned my hair, got out, something was different and didnt smell the greatest. I carried on sat down for a bit and then decided to go blow dry my hair, I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible, got back in the shower used my other shampoo and rubbed that in, as I took my hands out of my hair it was covered in hair and just kept on falling out." Robinson said she visited the emergency room due to a burning sensation and was later discharged. The following evening, she wrote on Facebook that she had undergone a "consultation" but had resigned herself to having to shave her head. On July 30, Robinson posted a photograph of herself bald, and on Aug. 1, Minneapolis television station WCCO interviewed her: wrote photograph  On Aug. 1, the New Richmond Police Department announced they had opened an investigation into potential product tampering after having received a formal complaint about Robinson's experience. Their news release on the subject stated that: news release Due to the significance of this offense, New Richmond officers and detectives have been working with Wal-Mart staff to identify potential suspects and review video surveillance. The New Richmond Police Department will continue to follow the facts of this case. While this appears to be an isolated case at this time, the New Richmond Police Department is asking anyone in this area that has been a recent victim of this type of activity to please report it immediately to your local police/sheriffs department. The New Richmond Police Department is also reminding people to be diligent in checking products for safety seals and prior to any use to make sure it is consistent with the product you are expecting. We have so far been unable to independently verify that Ashley Robinson's hair loss was involuntary and came about as the result of her using conditioner tainted with Nair (or some other hair-removal product, or any other substance) following an act of product tampering at the Walmart in New Richmond. If or when we receive evidence that would verify that sequence of events, we will update this article accordingly. We do know that Robinson experienced hair loss, and that she did indeed visit the emergency room at Westfields Hospital and Clinic in New Richmond on July 28, 2019. Her mother provided Snopes with a photograph of part of Robinson's after-visit summary. We have redacted certain personal details, but the doctor's summary clearly establishes that Robinson had experienced hair loss and suffered chemical burns on her scalp: "If [she] develops further burning sensation please ... re-rinse her hair. You can follow up in your clinic regarding hair regrowth. Based on the appearance of her scalp, that will likely grow back normally. However, follow-up may be necessary if you're [sic] hair is not coming in as expected." The doctor listed the diagnosis as: "Chemical burn of scalp, unspecified corrosion degree, initial encounter."   However, beyond this documentation, we have found no evidence that corroborates the claim that Robinson's conditioner was deliberately contaminated with hair-removal cream by a third party. Furthermore, we have discovered certain details that subtract, rather than add, support to that theory. Dispute over dates First, significant confusion exists over when Robinson actually purchased the conditioner that she believes caused her hair loss. In her original Facebook post, Timm said her daughter had bought it from Walmart around two days earlier, which would be July 26. However, Timm later told Snopes that Robinson bought it on July 23. And in its Aug. 1 news report, WCCO said she Robinson bought it on the same day as her hair began to fall out, July 28. When we asked Timm to clear up those discrepancies, she insisted that her daughter had indeed purchased the conditioner on July 23 and said she had asked WCCO to correct its reporting. However, a spokesperson for Walmart told us that a team of employees had extensively reviewed video surveillance footage from the company's New Richmond location and found evidence that a customer who appeared to be Robinson had, in fact, purchased what appeared to be similar conditioner two weeks before the onset of her hair loss, not five days before it. Walmart found no evidence of Robinson's purchasing conditioner there at any other time in the ensuing two weeks. Walmart also reviewed footage of the same aisle from before Robinson's visit and saw no evidence of an individual's tampering with shampoo or conditioner bottles. We again put this discrepancy to Timm, who told us she could not explain it and said she had been told by her daughter that July 23 was the date on which her daughter bought the conditioner in question. We also asked Robinson about this discrepancy, checking whether it was possible she had misremembered either the date of the purchase or the location of the Walmart. She told us she was certain she made the purchase at the New Richmond Walmart and was "almost positive" she did so on July 23. Robinson also told us that July 28 was the first time she had used the conditioner, meaning it would have been sitting unused in her home for either five days (by her account), or around two weeks (based on Walmart's surveillance footage). We asked Robinson whether any possibility existed that a visitor to her home during that time might have contaminated the conditioner before she first used it, and she told us she had not had any visitors during that time. The smell test Furthermore, Walmart's review of the surveillance footage found evidence that the customer who resembled Robinson had unscrewed the pump-top cap from several bottles of conditioner, smelling each item before settling on one for purchase. This is potentially a significant finding. Robinson, in her July 28 Facebook post, asserted that she quickly realized something had gone awry in washing her hair because she could detect the odor of another substance in her conditioner ("something was different and didnt smell the greatest," "I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible"). asserted If the conditioner did contain a contaminant (whether hair removal cream or some other substance) which smelled strongly enough at the time that it struck Robinson as "terrible," it stands to reason that she would have detected it in the first place if she were "sniff-testing" conditioners in Walmart before she chose the one she purchased. We put this question to Robinson, who claimed that she had opened bottles of shampoo when she visited the store, but not bottles of conditioner. In a statement, Walmart told us they had "inspected all products in our store, reviewed surveillance footage and found no evidence of tampering." The company removed no products from its shelves, despite Robinson and Timm's claims of product-tampering, and according to their statement, Walmart employees have "attempted to reach out to the customer to discuss this further and have received no response." Robinson told us she had not yet contacted Walmart because she was waiting to meet with her attorney. Two different colors Significant difference appears to exist between the look of the hair shown deposited in the shower in Robinson's original July 28 photographs, and that of the hair shown in photographs posted later. The hair in the photograph below appears to be black in color, and some strands look to be relatively long:  By contrast, Robinson later posted three photographs of herself on Facebook, which appeared to show her with brown or even blonde hair, apparently shorter than the black hair shown deposited in the shower. Timm told us that these photographs had been taken in the hospital on July 28. This means that, according to Timm and Robinson's version of events, her hair appeared black when she washed it on the evening on July 28, but had significantly lightened in color within a matter of hours:  Timm also sent us a fourth photograph, which she said was taken on the day after the event. It even more clearly illustrated the change in apparent hair color that, according to the two women's account, took place:  Courtesy of Taffy Jo Timm.  We put those discrepancies to Timm, who told us that her daughter had dyed her hair and speculated that whatever substance was purportedly added to the conditioner removed the dye from her hair, as well as removing portions of the hair itself: "I feel whatever was put into [the] conditioner stripped the hair color and removed big clumps of hair." Robinson told us she had dyed her hair dark brown two months earlier, but her roots sometimes appeared "medium brown" and "even a little blonder-looking." The hair shown in the shower appeared darker than it really was, she told us, because it was wet. And the hair shown in the subsequent Facebook photographs appeared lighter than it really was due to the effect of the camera's light. Robinson later posted to Facebook a photograph of herself with dyed hair, which she said was taken the day before her hair loss began, and various photographs on her Facebook account demonstrated that she did indeed periodically dye her hair. posted We haven't been able to verify that any substance was added to Robinson's conditioner in the first place, or that the conditioner was the cause of her hair loss, placing doubt on Timm's hypothesis that a contaminant added to the conditioner removed the dye from her daughter's hair and led to a significant difference in hair color across the photographs. Furthermore, the difference between the apparent color of the hair in the first photograph and its appearance in the other four remains significant enough that, while we are by no means dismissing it, Robinson's explanation remains open to reasonable doubt. Finally, other elements are absent that would add credibility to the "Walmart tampering" account of Robinson's hair loss. For example, New Richmond police Chief Craig Yehlik told us that his department had received no other recent reports of product tampering of any kind in the New Richmond area. This absence of reports of similar incidents does not destroy the credibility of Timm and Robinson's version of events, but neither does it enhance it. Although not definitive, Walmart's internal investigation into many hours of surveillance footage yielded no evidence of product tampering at its New Richmond store, but it did reveal evidence that cast doubt on Timm and Robinson's version of events. It is noteworthy that the company has decided not to withdraw any items from sale at that store, despite widely publicized allegations that product-tampering took place there. Zlotnick, Robin. "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair."
 Distractify. 1 August 2019. Duribe, Jazmin. "People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles and WTF."
 PopBuzz. 1 August 2019. Jasso, Silke. "Warning! People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles."
 Rare.us. 30 July 2019. Yehlik, Craig. "Press Release -- Product Tampering."
 New Richmond Police/Facebook. 1 August 2019.
Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. As she campaigns to upend GOP state Sen. Robert Cowles in one of the closely watched Wisconsin recall campaigns, Democrat Nancy Nusbaum is talking up her long record of public service.Now anally of Cowles, the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, is trying to use that record against Nusbaum.In a television ad paid for by its issues fund, the heavyweight business group is ripping Nusbaums fiscal record during her eight years as Brown County executive, which ended in 2003.Spending went up, taxes went up,theadsays in part. Everything Nancy Nusbaum touches goes up. When Nusbaum was Brown County executive, spending went up nearly 50 percent. Tell Nancy Nusbaum we expect fiscal responsibility to be real, not a lot of hot air.In the ad, hot air balloons and rockets rise to underline the point.When we sought backup from WMC, the group did not return calls. So we checked the record.Brown County officials looked up the budget numbers for us, focusing on the seven budgets Nusbaum signed from late 1995 to early 2003.Operating spending went up 53 percent over those seven years. That works out to an average increase of 6.3 percent per year. State, local and federal funds contribute to the budget.So the ad is on target numerically.Indeed, Nusbaum does not dispute the numbers in it and did not criticize the ad as unfair but noted the County Board had a role in the budgets.By contrast, the spending increase over the seven years following Nusbaums tenure was 34 percent, which is 4.2 percent per year on average.The ad pulls the statistic out without any context for what was behind it.Why the dramatic difference in spending?Nusbaum pointed to replacement of an overcrowded jail, the cost of state-mandated services, increasing urbanization and associated social service costs, and the costs of caring for an aging population, among other reasons.Property values and state aid to counties were rising, welfare and jail spending grew rapidly, and counties saw big increases in administrative costs for things such as information technology, said John Reinemann, legislative director for the Wisconsin Counties Association.Levy limits on counties were minimal compared with today, Reinemann noted.Reinemann told us that 7 percent to 8 percent annual spending increases such as those in Brown County were not uncommon in the late 1990s among Wisconsin counties.His view is backed up by a ranking of counties that shows Brown in the middle of the pack in growth of spending per capita from 1993-2001. That is from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, a research organization.Spending in six key categories went up 6.3 percent annually during that time, the group found.Nusbaum, a retired teacher and former mayor of De Pere, said she prefers to point to the property tax rate instead of the total tax levy and kept it stable as executive. Brown County records show she did that.But the rate does not reflect the true cost of government, especially when it comes to property taxes. The rate can stay steady or decline, but tax bills can rise if the property tax levy (an indicator of spending) goes up.In Brown County, as elsewhere, increasing property values in the 1990s helped hold down the tax rate even as total tax levy collections rose. Statewide values jumped up 7.7 percent a year from 1993-2002, WTA found. In fact, statewide, net property tax rates actually dropped during the decade as property values soared.Lets conclude.A business group spotlighted the budget increases during Nusbaums term, suggesting through words and graphics that they were sky high.They certainly were large compared with the years that followed, for reasons related to decisions by Nusbaum, county supervisors, the state, and local residents -- as well as demographics and sociological trends.The number -- 50 percent -- is on target.But the ad leaves out information about the other factors that went into the spending. Indeed, Brown Countys spending was not atypical for the time and by at least one groups measure was in the middle of the pack.We rate the WMC claim Mostly True. With state lawmakers revving up plans to tackle Georgias underfunded transportation system, some readers are confused about the often-changing plan. As it stands, the House has passedHB 170to raise about $700 million next year toward a $1 billion annual need to maintain existing roads and bridges. The proposal is now before the Senate, which could adjust or completely overhaul the proposed taxes and cuts in the legislation. One alert reader reached out on Twitter, remembering a claim in a story earlier this year and wondering if the House version still revokes a tax-credit for consumers electric cars, while leaving a similar break in place for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia decided to check it out. The necessity of tax hikes has long threatened talk of tackling the states backlog of transportation projects and resulting gridlock. Amendments that would have undercut the tax rates in HB 170 were introduced right up until the House approved the proposal intact. As is, the legislation would eliminate the state percent sales tax on gasoline and replace it with an excise tax of 29.2 cents per gallon. Key to our question, it also would eliminate the popular $5,000 state tax credit for all-electric vehicles ($2,500 for low-emission vehicles) as of July 1. Owners of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles, meanwhile, would be required to pay a $200 annual registration fee. State Rep. Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, said that included the changes in the transportation tax bill he pushed through the changes because electric vehicle owners practically pay nothing to lease and operate those cars. The tax credit cost the state $13.6 million in 2013. When combined with the $7.500 federal tax credit for buying a zero-emission electric vehicle, the state credit covers about 23 percent of the lowest-priced Nissan Leaf. Atlanta was the top market in the nation last year for the Leaf, the nations top plug-in electric car, in part due to the generous state tax incentive. Eliminating the credit and adding the annual fee is estimated to generate about $68 million in new revenue in 2016, according to the state Department of Audits and Accounts. Not addressed in the pending legislation, though, is any change to tax credits for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia had to go back to last years legislative session to find those breaks. Roberts was among 116 House members (and 41 Senators) who approved House Bill 348 last year. That measure, which Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law last April, provides an income-tax credit of up to $20,000 for firms that purchase a heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle and $12,000 for the purchase of medium-duty alternative fuel vehicles. The credits are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis and are limited to $2.5 million each year for vehicles that run on electricity, liquid petroleum gas, natural gas or hydrogen. (The break does not include vehicles under 8,500 pounds. That eliminates the Leaf, which weighs between 3,000 and 3,500 pounds, according to various automotive blogging and news web sites.) Those tax credits expire on June 30, 2017. But it took no time for some firms to make good use of the breaks to switch to alt-fuel vehicles. Sandy Springs-based UPS, for instance, said last spring it was buying 1,000 propane-powered delivery trucks as part of a $70 million investment. Those trucks are used in more rural areas, where propane is more readily available, and can go up to 200 miles on a single tank. So that means the current legislation does revoke a tax break available for consumers alternative-fuel vehicles, while leaving alone a similar credit for business use. Several studies suggest the Georgia economy actually benefits from both of the tax credits, though. The break for businesses spurs investment and can create the bulk buying that encourage the rest of the market, said Bruce Seaman, an economics professor at Georgia State University. The breaks for consumers electric vehicles keep more money in Georgia, in large part because the state does not have a very large interest in the oil industry but does generate a lot of economic activity around electricity. One study, by the Keybridge Public Policy Economics consulting firm, concludes the state stands to lose $107 million to its GDP in the next five years if it eliminates the consumer tax break. Over 16 years, from now until 2030, the amount is $252 million. The analysis also showed that without the credit, Georgia car owners would pay $155 million more to pump gas into their cars in the next five years, offset by saving about $60 million in electricity. That means a double-hit to Georgias overall economy: lost fuel savings and an increase in spending on fuel (gas), whose profits leave the state. Its pretty hard, economically, to justify one credit and not the other, Seaman said. Eliminating the electric vehicle credit is a quest for funding. But its short-sighted not to consider the overall economic impacts, especially on commuting and our roads. Senators may well weigh those considerations as they take up the legislation. House members, too, could discuss changes if the proposal returns to them with any amendments. But the question here is whether, today, Georgias transportation legislation eliminates a popular consumer tax credit while retaining a similar break for businesses. It does. One caveat: the tax credit for businesses, which is not mentioned in the latest proposal, would expire in two years anyway. Both of those issues may be the topic of debate to come. But as it stands, we rate the claim True. Claim:  Welfare queen decries New Orleans public housing. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2008] Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass  the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into   Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacydown to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, "I tried it for a year..you know...working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year." Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. "Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors," says Sharon. "They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool  that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump." "Do you know why?" She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard, and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, "Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!" Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, "Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they areunfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment." Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents, and states that, "I might do better out there with one of these tents." She further lamented hersentiments about her situation, "I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor." Origins:  In December 2007, as part of its coverage of the ongoing battle over the City Council of New Orleans' plan to tear down four public housing complexes, a photographer visited the home of Sharon Jasper, a 48-year-old resident of that city and housing activist who lives in an apartment rented for her under the provisions of Section 8. (Federal housing assistance programs began in the U.S. during the Great Depression. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is one such program and is better known as Section 8, a term which refers to the part of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 under which the original subsidy program was authorized. Section 8 tenants pay their landlords about 30 percent of their income for rent, with the difference between what they pay and what is deemed fair rent for the unit provided by the federal  government.) That visit resulted in the photograph shown here of Jasper sitting on a couch in the subsidized private apartment she'd described as a slum. The snapshot captured her big screen TV and the unit's hardwood floors, apartmental accoutrements many had difficulty squaring against their definition of "slum." Jasper also complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door, and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated.  That photo plus quotes from Sharon Jasper lifted from that article ("I might do better out here with one of these tents") and from others ("I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor") were married to her outbursts at a New Orleans City Council meeting on 20 December 2007 ("I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!"), then worked into the satire piece quoted above. It's for this reason that we've given this item a "Multiple" status: While some of the elements portrayed in the spoof are fabricated of whole cloth, others aren't. And while most of the photos associated with the satire were taken from elsewhere, the first one, the one that shows a big screen television, is the real deal. Though we cannot yet definitively identify the satirist who masterminded this piece, we believe it to be the work of a blogger known as jimbyrd on the Word Press site. The item now circulates generally in the shortened version quoted above, but the far longer original contains additional photos of the "substandard" housing given in the satire's version of Sharon Jasper, as well as her assessment of the same, such as her reaction to the contents of the wine cellar: "Look at all these bottles of wine, they are worthless. Just another example of thinking I am stupid. All this wine is at least 10 years old and some of it is 20 years old, you know the white man kept all the fresh stuff for himself. I aint that stupid." original That same blog contains other works of satire, such as "Vermont to Arrest George Bush and Dick Cheney" and "Hillary Clinton Sues Barack Obama." Vermont Sues Last updated:  17 February 2008    Sources:   Bohrer, Becky.  "Public Housing Advocates Seek Halt on Demolitions."   Associated Press.  30 November 2007.    Warner, Coleman.  "Housing Officials Claim Surplus."   [New Orleans] Times-Picayune.  18 December 2007. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. Following the 94th Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 2022, a false tweet from Twitter user @fondasbian was posted with a decades-old video of actor Jane Fonda with the caption, "The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." false tweet Twitter Jane Fonda Oscars While this misleading message was somewhat overshadowed by an incident involving comedian Chris Rock and actor Will Smith, that didn't stop the tweet from receiving tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes. Those shares only served to boost the false claim. an incident Chris Rock Will Smith The tweet in question claimed: "Jane Fonda signed her best actress speech in 1979 because the Oscars wouldn't offer closed captions. The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." Jane Fonda Oscars Oscars   In the brief 30-second video from the 51st Academy Awards in 1979, Fonda did sign part of her acceptance speech for the hearing-impaired. She was accepting an award for best actress for her role in the 1978 film, "Coming Home." One of the main characters in the film is a disabled veteran. He was portrayed by actor Jon Voight. Fonda disabled veteran Jon Voight The full speech was uploaded to the official Oscars YouTube channel: the official Oscars YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_73XeE8fo&t=157sThe portion included in the tweet is bolded below: I'm so happy. I wanted to win very much because I'm so proud of "Coming Home," and I want many people to see the movie. I'm signing part of what I'm saying tonight because while we were making the movie we all became more aware of the problems of the handicapped. Over 14 million people are deaf. They are the invisible handicapped and can't share this evening. So this is my way of acknowledging them. The tweet in question claimed that the Oscars first started providing closed captions in 2021. In truth, the Oscars had been providing closed captioning for decades. Oscars Oscars On March 27, 1982, Wisconsin's Leader-Telegram newspaper published that a brand new way of providing captions during live television would be debuting at that year's Oscars: Leader-Telegram published Oscars A new method for providing closed captioning for hearing-impaired viewers will be unveiled by the National Captioning Institute during ABC-TV coverage of the 54th annual Academy Awards presentations March 29. Called Real Time, the method is a form of electronic computerized shorthand which will allow hearing-impaired viewers to receive closed captions throughout the entire telecast, including acceptance speeches the moment they are spoken. NCI spokesman John E. D. Ball said Real Time involves a courtroom style stenotype machine and a computer capable of transmitting phonetic symbols into words. Twitter user @bubbaprog pointed out that the March 27 tweet from @fondasbian was misleading. "This tweet has 5,000 retweets and it's completely false," @bubbaprog tweeted. "The Academy Awards were literally the first live program to utilize closed-captioning in 1982 and have been captioned ever since." pointed out tweeted It's true that the Oscars had featured closed captions during every ceremony since 1982. However, while the Academy Awards were the first program to utilize closed captions during a live broadcast, similar technology for prerecorded programs (not live) had already been partially implemented two years before. Oscars On March 16, 1980, the Chicago Tribune newspaper published that NBC, ABC, and PBS announced they would begin to "inaugurate a new service designed to enlarge the world of prime-time TV for Americans with impaired hearing." Chicago Tribune published According to the article, programs that received the first closed captions on American television were the "Wonderful World of Disney," ABC's "Sunday Night Movie," "Eight Is Enough," "Barney Miller," "Masterpiece Theater," "Once Upon a Classic," and "Mystery Theater." In sum, no, the Oscars did not wait until 2021 to start providing closed captions. The Academy Award ceremonies had been broadcast with closed captions since 1982 and were the first live program to utilize the technology. Oscars In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. Madison Mayor Paul Soglin wants to require city contractors to publicly disclose donations theyve made to super PACS or advocacy groups operating in Wisconsin. That has drawn objections from a conservative public interest law firm, theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. It contends the liberal mayors proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs. So why does Soglin want to mandate the public disclosures by firms doing business with the city? Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty offered this answer in a June 4, 2012post on its website: Theproposed ordinance, according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. Is that what Soglin has said is a goal of the legislation? Asked to back up the groups claim, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and general counsel Rick Esenberg pointed to a May 8, 2013story in Madisons Capital Timesthat quoted Soglin extensively about his motives. The article stated that actions by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature that ran contrary to the wishes of Madison and Soglin were on the mayors mind  when he drafted the ordinance. Legislative action since Gov. Scott Walkers election  including Act 10 in 2011 curtailing the collective bargaining power of most public workers, and more recently, legislation setting levy limits for municipalities and restricting cities powers in tenant-landlord law  got Soglin wondering if companies supporting Republican causes would rather lobby against the city or do business with it, the Cap Times story said. It added: Hes betting that exposing such activities might prompt some companies to curtail them. Those passages suggest pretty strongly that Soglin believes that some contractors faced with being identified as pro-Republican or pro-conservative will reconsider their political activity under his proposal to require them to publicly report their now-private donations to advocacy groups. Deeper into the Capital Times interview, Soglin made another reference to the right side of the political spectrum. He mentioned the Koch Brothers, the billionaire industrialists who founded the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party organization that supported Walker in his 2012 recall win. Its unclear how much the group raises and spends because as a tax-exempt organization the group, like many others, does not have to disclose its donors. Soglins additional comments from the article: I think it would be a good idea to know if the bidders are contributing to political efforts which go into organizations that may be lobbying for certain kinds of outcomes or working against the interests of the city. It is simply the idea that sunshine is good. If a company bidding on a city contract also is lobbying for state or federal regulations that make their product required in their industry, the public ought to know about it. At the same time if theyre supplying the city while they're behaving like theKoch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it. Its a bit ironic when someone wants a contract with government, yet supports organizations that hate government and try to make it inefficient. So that is what is in the article. To be sure, the language of the proposed ordinance itself doesnt say Soglins intent is to squelch donations. It says information on donations is essential to the operation of a democracy, informing voters and governments about the activities of those attempting to influence the operations of government. Indeed, the proposal would require disclosure of donations to groups of any political stripe -- it does not single out conservatives or Republicans. Rather, the ordinance specifies that firms and minority owners disclose donations made to tax-exempt 501(c)(4) advocacy or super PAC organizations operating in Wisconsin the prior two years. Contractors would face a one-year ban from receiving city contracts if they fail to disclose any donations to advocacy groups within 30 days of getting a contract. When we reached Soglin, he acknowledged the ordinance might cause some firms hoping to continue as city contractors to stop making donations to groups that oppose the views of he and other city leaders. I will not say that this will leave things exactly the way things are, he said. But Soglin added this: He said the contractors were free to exercise their First Amendment rights and that he hopes they continue to make such donations, saying, I want to know where they stand. He said his goal was to unmask donations, for example, by firms whose ownersmake private donations to advocacy groups working to unseat sitting aldermen. Or to identify firm officials who give to groups supporting private-school vouchers and other programs and decisions he and city officials have opposed. I think the public has a right to know, said Soglin. What would happen if left-leaning city officials discover that contractors are fighting the views of city officials in private? Soglin said no city officials will take into account political donations when officials are deciding on awarding a contract. That language is also included in the ordinance. But Scott Resnick, the Madison Common Councils president pro tem, told us in an interview that aldermen would, in fact, use the information on donations made to groups supporting Republicans in state government when evaluating whether firms should be rewarded future city contracts. So we want to know if you were putting money towards that before we sign another contract with you, he said. This would be one more data set that will be used to make decisions on awarding contracts. In the view of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Esenberg, the ordinances statement that political activity would not be held against firms at contract time shows the provision has no legitimate government purpose. Curiosity is not a valid governmental purpose, nor is the exposure of private contributions to the public for use by you or others in the political arena, Esenbergwrote to Soglinon June 3, 2013. Soglin, Esenberg said, leaves the listener no other choice but to think that he favors an outcome in which contractors curtail their political activity. He wants to out these people as conservatives or libertarians, and they wont want to be outed that way in Madison, Esenberg said. Our rating The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty contended that, according to Soglin himself, the proposed ordinance is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. The group cites a newspaper interview that paraphrased Soglin saying that could happen in some cases as a result of his legislation. Soglin told us the same thing, but said his goal was limited to transparency. His statements make pretty clear he looks forward to forcing contractors to choose between trimming their political activity or disclosing it and facing the consequences. And he predicts some will stop making donations. We rate the statement True. A few days before she hit the stage in front of a national audience at the Republican National Convention, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte addressed a far smaller crowd in Merrimack, N.H.Despite the difference in venue, the New Hampshire Republican offered a similar message.During the town hall meeting, Ayotte, a Nashua native and freshman senator, took aim at President Obama and the growing debt under his administration. While she didnt specifically blame the president for the debt, she used the speech to blast Obama for increased spending and stifling business.Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Ayotte told the crowd Thursday, August 23, 2012, at Merrimack High School. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion ... in the 3 1/2 years he's been in office.The numbers have been used before. Lastweek, PolitiFact gave aMostly Trueratingto a similar claim by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the debt has jumped $5 trillion during Obamas time in office.But, does that mean Ayottes numbers are on target? Lets take a look.The numbers arent hard to track.The U.S. Department of the Treasury tracks the national debt figures on its website,TreasuryDirect.gov.On the site, the treasury department divides the national debt into two main categories, debt held by the government and debt held by the public. But, in her statement, Ayotte is referring to the combined total, or total national debt, according to spokesman Jeff Grappone.According to the federal count, the total debt currently sits around $16 trillion. But, as of August, 23, when Ayotte made the statement, it was closer to $15.98 trillion. That figure is about $5.35 trillion higher than the $10.63 trillion debt Obama inherited when he came into office January 19, 2009.When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion, and by the end of his eight years, it grew to $10.63 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.9 trillion. So, Ayottes numbers look right on target.Still, as is so often the case, the numbers dont tell the whole story, according to analysts.At PolitiFact, we consider not just the factual accuracy of a statement, but also whether credit and blame is fairly attributed.Federal spending records show that both Democrats and Republican share the blame for the increased spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obamas first two years, but Republicans have held the House of Representatives since January 2011.Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.Its true. They both contributed, said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institutions Budgeting for National Priorities Project. I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. Were seeing the impact of that now.Our ruling:Ayottes got her numbers right. According to the treasury departments count, the debt has grown $5.3 trillion since Obama took office in 2009, compared to $4.9 trillion in Bushs eight years.Still, analysts say these figures dont paint a full picture of the root causes of the debt.In her statement, Ayotte doesnt attribute direct credit or blame, but she did use the speech to blast Obama and his policies.We rate her claim Mostly True. In March 2017, an image parodying the many heartstring-tugging items that are circulated on Facebook  along with exhortations to viewers to "like," "share," or add an "amen" to them  itself gained wide currency via social media. The image featured a photograph of a man who was purportedly mugged while delivering comic books to his sick daughter: Of course, the pictured man's wounds did not stem from a mugging, and the pictured girl is neither sick nor the man's daughter.  This photograph shows actors Hugh Jackman and Dafne Keen, on the set of the 2017 film Logan. The image was originally posted by Jackman to his Twitter page on 10 March 2017: Twitter Guess who won this battle. Introducing the awesomely talented @DafneKeen @WolverineMovie @20thcenturyfox pic.twitter.com/c0SFq1bel6 @DafneKeen @WolverineMovie @20thcenturyfox pic.twitter.com/c0SFq1bel6  Hugh Jackman (@RealHughJackman) March 10, 2017 March 10, 2017  This viral meme most likely originated as a joke on the Facebook group "Comic Book Collecting," but the image managed to fool some social media users who were unfamiliar with the X-Men/Wolverine film franchise. Facebook Similar japes have circulated on the internet in the past, such as a photograph from the movie Tropic Thunder that was shared as an image of Vietnam veterans, a clip from the movie Grown Ups 2 that was shared with the claim it depicted a dangerous accident in a toy store, and a clip from the movie The Shallows shared as if it depicted a genuine shark attack. Tropic Thunder Grown Ups 2 The Shallows