Where's the Outrage - Alisa Wilson
Claim:  Letter to the Wall Steet Journal responds to a "Where's the Outrage?" editorial. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA, in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31, 2008. Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I? I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public. The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair. Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment? When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could  not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country. I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants. I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English. I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history. In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country. I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews  one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end? As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags. So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me. Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.Beverly Hills, California Origins:  On 31 July 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, entitled "Where's the Outrage? Really."  The gist of Mr. Brooks' commentary was to note that"virtually every group in the [U.S.] population [was] less angry" in 2008 than in 1996 with the exception of those who identify themselves as "very liberal," and to question why "folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment." editorial In response to Mr. Brooks' opinion piece, Beverly Hills, California, resident Dr. Alisa Wilson penned the above-quoted letter, which was submitted to (but not published by) the Wall Street Journal.  As Dr. Wilson told us: a) I did indeed write that letter in August 2008.  Please note, however, that although I submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal did not publish my letter.   b) The thoughts and sentiments in that article are my own, but apparently have resonated with many people.   c) I have seen some people in the "blog-o-sphere" question whether I am a real person.  Yes, indeed, I exist. Last updated:  19 May 2009
In December 2021, a video was circulated on social media that supposedly showed a "human sleeve," an artificial replacement body that would allow a person to "live" for eternity by using their stored consciousness. The conspiratorial website "Before Its News," for example, shared this video claiming that it showed a "whistleblowers" video of clones in Hollywood:   The video, which can be viewed below, does not show a "human sleeve" or a clone. This video features a marketing display for the show "Altered Carbon." A posting of the "human sleeve" video went viral after it was posted to TikTok in October.    This video shows a booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. While the presenters at this booth acted as if they were showcasing new cloning technology, this was really just a marketing ploy by Netflix for their new show "Altered Carbon." The Wrap reported at the time: Wrap reported Wandering through the seemingly never-ending Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, it was hard to miss the crowd gathered around around the PsychaSec display. Hosts draped in all-white were showing off two artificial bodies that, in a few years, humans could pay to trade their own crappy body for. At the same time, the host touted the companys ability to plant chips into a persons head and download every experience and memory theyve had. Sounds pretty trippy, right? Unfortunately, PsychaSec isnt real. But even the CIA wouldve had a hard time getting the booth hosts to admit it ...  I pulled aside another tall, attractive young host and told her just give me the truth: this is just a cool ad for Netflix. She kept smiling and towed the itll be out in a few years line. I then pointed out gullible people, like me, were walking away confused because they were displayed next to real products and wouldnt acknowledge Netflix at all. Finally, I got her to give me a wink, confirming its all a put-on. Thank you. Here's another video of this "Altered Carbon" advertisement that features the same two "human sleeves."  In Engadget's write-up of the event, they also noted that Netflix's "Psychasec" booth may have been a little too convincing: also noted Venture beyond tech whales like Samsung and Sony, beyond the rows of smart speakers and giant TVs, and you'll discover that there are weirder things to be found at CES. That might be why Netflix's trojan horse public relations move, establishing a fictional vendor booth deep within the Las Vegas Convention Center, worked a little too well. Well, I cheated. I was already briefed (through a press release) that "Psychasec" wasn't a genuine CES exhibitor, despite this full-fledged stall you see here. Nope, this is a fictional company from Altered Carbon, the next big-budget sci-fi series from Netflix, which seems to borrow heavily from Blade Runner, at least in visual delivery. The video of "human sleeves" does not show any real cloning technology. This video actually features a marketing stunt by Netflix for the series "Altered Carbon" that was put on display at CES in 2018.    Burch, Sean. Netflix Really Wants You To Believe #PsychaSec Is Real. https://www.thewrap.com/ces2018-netflix-really-wants-you-to-believe-psychasec-is-real/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Johnson, Lauren and 2018. The Most Disturbing Booth at CES Is Actually an Ad for Netflixs New Sci-Fi Show. https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/the-most-disturbing-booth-at-ces-is-actually-an-ad-for-netflixs-new-sci-fi-show/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Netflix Hid a Fake Biotech Booth in the Middle of CES. Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/2018-01-10-netflix-fake-ces-2018-altered-carbon.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Now that hes a lame duck himself, Republican Gov.Scott Walkersupports taking major actions during a lame-duck session of the Wisconsin Legislature  aFull Flopfrom theposition he tookwhen he was first elected in 2010. As he enters his final weeks in office, the two-term governorhas signaledthat he generally supportsbills adoptedby the GOP-controlled Legislature that wouldweaken the powersof Gov.-electTony Evers, who defeated Walker in the November 2018 election, and incoming Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats. There are also measures that would limit early voting, put lawmakers in charge of litigation aimed at overturning the federal Affordable Care Act and give Republicans more control over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the state jobs agency. The Legislatures lame-duck bills and Walkers change in position havemadenationalnews. Theyve also drawnthreats of legal actionby liberals andcriticism fromprominent Republicanscalling the move apower graband urging Walker not to sign the bills. On Dec. 9, 2018, four days after the measures won approval from the Legislature during an overnight session, Evers appeared onNBCs Meet the Press.He repeated his call for Walker to veto the lame-duck bills, saying: The entire thing is a mess, its a hot mess, and I believe that he should veto the entire package. In fact, at least three or four of the pieces that are in there now, he has vetoed previously. And so, it makes no sense to me. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc. So, are there three or four provisions in the legislation Walker is now considering that he has vetoed previously? Yes, although they are on more arcane measures, not the ones that have generated the recent controversy. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, a nonpartisan state agency, identified four provisions in the lame-duck legislation that are similar to four measures Walker vetoed in September 2017 in the 2017-19 state budget. That information was requested from the bureau by the office of state Rep.Peter Barca, D-Kenosha. Barcas office then produceda memoon the similarities. That memo was cited to us by Evers spokeswoman as evidence to back Evers claim. We also revieweda memoon the lame-duck legislation by the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, another nonpartisan state agency. What we found is that the lame-duck legislation does contain some provisions that are the same -- or similar to -- provisions Walker previously vetoed. But those provisions arent the ones in the lame-duck legislation that have caused the big headlines. Heres a look: Walker 2017 veto 2018 GOP lame-duck legislation Effect Veto allowed transfer of funds by Department of Transportation between state highway programs   without legislative oversight. Legislation would repeal altogether DOT's authority totransfer state funds between state highway program components. Less flexibility for Evers administration than Walkers administration. Veto deleted requirement that Department of Administration do annual report on statesself-funded portalfor consolidating accounting, budget and other services. Would require the annual report. Imposes requirement on Evers administration that Walker administration did not want to do. Veto deleted requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs receive approval from Legislatures Joint Finance Committee before transferring money for state veterans homes to veterans trust fund. Would require  department to notify the committee of any transfers. Walker vetoed the measure because it would have encroached on the executive branchs responsibility to manage state agency programs. The requirement is more of a burden on Evers, given that the Joint Finance Committee is majority Republican. Veto deleted requirement that Department of Health Services submit report to Legislatures Joint Finance Committee on Walker initiative to require childless adults to work or get work training in order to receive Medicaid. Veto also eliminated  requirement that the Joint Finance Committee give approval before the work/work training requirement could be implemented. Legislation would codify into law the work and work training requirement. Without codifying the initiative into law, Evers administration could have made adjustments to the program; with new legislation, Evers administration would need approval from Joint Finance Committee or full Legislature. Evers said, At least three or four of the pieces that are in in the Republican lame-duck legislation, Walker has vetoed previously. There are four provisions in the lame-duck bills that Walker has vetoed previously and that would put new requirements or restrictions on the incoming Evers administration. But those provisions arent the major ones in the lame-duck session that have generated so much controversy and threats of lawsuits. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. Status:  False. Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is On 8 January 2019, presidential biographer Jon Meacham tweeted what he described as a quote from the year 1924 made by then-Georgia Gov. Clifford Walker during a speech given at a Ku Klux Klan gathering: America should build a wall of steel, a wall as high as Heaven" against the flow of immigrants.--Georgia Gov. Clifford Walker, at a 1924 convention of the Ku Klux Klan, then a powerful force at a time of strain for the white working class. #PastIsPrologue #PastIsPrologue  Jon Meacham (@jmeacham) January 8, 2019 January 8, 2019  The quote spread across the Internet, stripped of its context and in meme form, prompting some readers to query whether the quote and its description were real:   We confirmed that Walker did in fact make this remark in regards to immigrants at a KKK gathering. The statement was part of a speech called "Americanism Applied" and given by Walker at a "Klonvocation" in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1924. It can be found in a book called the Proceedings of the Second Imperial Klonvokation of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The contents of that book have been uploaded to the Internet Archive, and we confirmed its authenticity with the Special Collections branch of the University of California at Davis' library, which also possesses a copy. Internet Archive Meacham's tweet was referencing a protracted partial shutdown of the federal government resulting from an impasse over a demand by President Donald Trump for a budget appropriation of $5.7 billion to fund wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump had been stating on Twitter that his desired wall would be made of steel: A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful! pic.twitter.com/sGltXh0cu9 pic.twitter.com/sGltXh0cu9  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 21, 2018 December 21, 2018  Although harsh immigration rhetoric and policies have primarily targeted Latino migrants, Walker's comments demonstrate the shifting idea of which immigrant groups are considered favorable. His declaration, in its entirety, stated: "I would build a wall of steel, a wall as high as Heaven, against the admission of a single one of those Southern Europeans who never thought the thoughts or spoke the language of a democracy in their lives." Kinights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc.  Proceedings of the Second Imperial Klonvocation of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Held in Kansas City, MO in September 1924.
  1924. Meacham, Jon.  The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels.
  Random House, 2018.  ISBN 0399589813. Baker, Kelly J.  "Make America White Again?"
  The Atlantic.  12 March 2016. After Dan Patrick popped a statistic to back his contention that Texas state government spends plenty on education, a reader asked us to check the Republican lieutenant governors accuracy. Patrick, in a June 2017commentary, extolled the state budget then about to besigned into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, specifying: Texas spends $60 billion on schools in our two-year budget, including both federal and state funds. Of that, $41 billion is state funding. That is on top of the estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually paid by local property taxpayers. When colleges and universities are added, Patrick said, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget  about 52 percent of all state dollars. Health care is second, accounting for most of the remaining dollars. It is disingenuous to suggest that we are, somehow, holding back funding that we could spend on schools. Our review of budget documents posted by the Legislative Budget Board led us to find Patricks figure solid though the percentage also proved historic in a low-end way not stated by Patrick. Patrick cites state budget summary Up front, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia responded by email to our inquiry about the basis of Patricks 52 percent by pointing out a chart in the2018-19 state budget, which takes effect Sept. 1, 2017. The chart shows that the budget puts $55.9 billion in general revenue toward public and higher education out of $106.7 billion in all such revenue  which breaks out to 52.4 percent of such spending. Next highest: Nearly $34 billion budgeted for health and human services accounts for 31 percent of state spending in the budget. SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Some context: The chart shows that the nearly $41 billion in public school aid appropriated by the 2017 Legislature trailed $635.6 million, or 1.5 percent, behind what lawmakers budgeted for public schools the previous two years. On the other hand, the new budget increases state spending on higher education by $195.2 million, 1.1 percent, from the 2016-17 budget, according to the chart. We asked the Legislative Budget Board about Patricks percentage. By email, staff spokesman R.J. DeSilva responded by pointing out the same chart offered by Patrick. Separately to our emailed inquiries, Austin school-finance expert Joe Wisnoski, who works for a firm that represents school districts, and Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials didnt quibble with Patricks calculation. Wisnoski added, though, that the 52 percent conclusion may not be the whole story. He alsopointed outthat from all funding sources--including federal aid--lawmakers devoted $80 billion to education, which represented 37 percent of the full $217 billion state budget. Alternate calculation For our part, we noticed one other way of gauging the share of state revenue budgeted for education. Another chart in the budget shows that lawmakers budgeted nearly $58.8 billion for public schools and higher education in state general revenue plus the smaller pot of money consisting of state revenue dedicated to particular expenditures. The combined amount, we found, also breaks out to 52 percent of the full budgets $113.1 billion in state revenue and dedicated state revenue:  SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Other state funds? When we asked about Patrick's claim, Dominic Giarratani of the Texas Association of School Boards agreed its fair to focus on state general revenue to evaluate budgeted spending on education. By email, though, he also provided a calculation suggesting that public plus higher education accounts for 48 percent of non-federal spending in the budget. Thats correct, it looked to us, though its worth noting the additional spending captured by this alternate analysis folds in chunks of money not easily controlled by lawmakers--including $1.8 billion of earnings on the endowment that benefits institutions in the University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems; nearly $4.6 billion in local tax revenue  projected to be provided by property-rich school districts, including the Austin district, to support the states school finance system; and nearly $3.6 billion in payments driven by a 2006 state-mandated reduction in school property taxes. Historic low? Next, we wondered how the 52 percent cited by Patrick for 2018-19 compares to the share of state GR devoted to education in previous budgets. To get a fix on that, we checked spending on education from non-dedicated GR in the previous 10 budgets. Such funds comprise the bulk of each budget and are most directly controlled by legislative decisions. Our finding: In the budgets, which encompass 20 years, no Legislature devoted less than 53 percent of general revenue to education. On average, educations share of state spending through the budgets was 58 percent. State Revenue Budgeted for Education, Texas, 1998-99 through 2018-19 (By Percentage) BUDGET YEARS SHARE OF REVENUE* BUDGETED FOR PUBLIC AND HIGHER EDUCATION 1998-99 61 % 2000-01 63 2002-03 59 2004-05 59 2006-07 56 2008-09 59 2010-11 61 2012-13 57 2014-15 53 2016-17 53 2018-19 52 *State general revenue, excluding revenue constitutionally dedicated to particular purposes. SOURCE: PolitiFact Texas calculations drawing on state budgets adopted by Texas Legislature, 1997-2017as posted bythe Legislative Budget Board (accessed June 14-15, 2017) Our ruling Patrick, saying its disingenuous to suggest lawmakers held back on education aid, said 52 percent of state spending in the 2018-19 state budget was appropriated to public plus higher education. Thats an accurate percentage. Unclarified: Education also accounts for the smallest share of budgeted state spending in at least 20 years, which is as far back as we checked. We rate the 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. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. In early January 2017 a rumor swept Facebook asserting that "Facebook security" people were being paid to watch individual accounts:  According to that rumor, entering the term "Facebook Security" into Facebook's "block users" field would reveal a list of people whom the social network had engaged to furtively monitor your activity, and each of whom had to be individually blocked by you to prevent them from spying on you: rumor [D]id you know there are people literally watching your Facebook account? Yes. There are people who have a specific duty to monitor your posts and activity. While there are many Facebook secrets, for those who enjoy privacy, this one is for you! Here is what you need to do to block the majority of the accounts that monitor your Facebook: 1. > Log into Facebook 2. > Account Settings 3. > Click on blocking 4. > In the search field where it says Block Users type in: Facebook Security 5. > A new window will pop up. The list you see is a list of [most likely] Facebook employees, spies, and private accounts that are paid to shill for who knows who (sarcasm (kind of)). 6. > Go down the list, and if you dont like being monitored, just hit the block button. Some of the accounts are unable to be blocked. While this is somewhat disturbing, you must remember that Facebook owns everything Facebook, so in essence, you agreed to be monitored. (I know. What moral and reasonable organization needs to hire people to monitor you? Right?) However, following these instructions does nothing to uncover or block the (non-existent) Facebook security personnel who are supposedly monitoring your online activities. Entering the term "Facebook Security" into "Block Users" search box simply returns "profiles of [users] who have used those particular words somewhere on their profile [or] in a place thats visible to the individual, as in a public post." The list returned by this search neither includes people who are furtively following you, nor persons employed to spy on you by Facebook security. In September 2017, this rumor took on a slightly new form (one which eliminated the paranoid reference to "Facebook security"): Again, following these instructions simply produces a list of Facebook users with the string 'Me' somewhere in their screen names or profiles, not a list of accounts of people who are secretly following you: On Aug. 23, 2020, bystanders' cellphone videos captured a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shooting a Black man, Jacob Blake, multiple times as he opened the door to his vehicle. The footage went viral on social media and sparked deadly protests in the lakeside city over racism in American policing. Jacob Blake deadly protests One video, which a neighbor recorded from a second-story apartment nearby, showed Blake, 29, trying to get into his SUV from the driver-side door as a police officer pointed a gun at him, grabbed him by his shirt and then fired several times  shooting Blake in the back. Another clip documented the scene from the ground level, as children and other witnesses watched from a yard. The officer who fired his weapon was identified as Rusten Sheskey, according to Wisconsin's attorney general. video clip identified The day after the shooting, which left Blake paralyzed from the waist down as of this writing, advocates for police reform argued that if those witnesses had not taken out their phones, the public would not have known about the officers' use of potentially-lethal force. It was unclear whether dashboard cameras on squad cars captured the incident, and Kenosha officers do not wear body cameras  leading tools for holding officers accountable for their actions. paralyzed Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Blake's family, as well as other high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans, including the relatives of George Floyd, tweeted: representing George Floyd,  We considered his underlying claim to be this: Kenosha city leaders approved an "ordinance" in 2017 that "required" all of Kenosha's roughly 200 police officers to wear body cameras, but, despite that active policy, the city had not purchased the technology as of August 2020. Additionally, the lawyer alleged the city was planning to buy the devices in 2022. First, to find any evidence of a 2017 policy that would make body cameras mandatory for all officers, Snopes combed through meeting agendas and minutes for the Kenosha Common Council  the city's 17-member group with the authority to write legislation for the city of roughly 100,000 people between Milwaukee and Chicago. We found an archived video of a council committee meeting on Feb. 27, 2017, where former Alderperson Kevin Mathewson asked the group to approve a formal request for the mayor to set aside city funding in the following year's budget to outfit officers with body cameras. "The city, unfortunately, has been a little slow to implement much technology," he said in his testimony. "If we can help document incidents better, and give the [district attorney] tools to make quicker convictions with less resources, we can save cops from violence ... I think it's a great thing." Roughly one month later, on March 20, 2017, the council unanimously approved the below-displayed resolution  not an ordinance and not Mathewson's budget proposal  that formalized city leaders' support for the devices. But that move was largely a statement to urge state legislators and then-Gov. Scott Walker to establish guidelines for how local police departments store and release the cameras' data, not an enforceable policy to make the devices mandatory for Kenosha officers. approved    Notably, the resolution stated: [I]mplementation of Body Worn Cameras for officers of the Kenosha Police Department is dependent on resolution of policy concerns associated with matters such as usage, storage, requirements, Public Record limitation, and privacy issues involving Body Worn Cameras.  In other words, it was true to state Kenosha city leaders expressed support for equipping police officers with body cameras in 2017, but they did not mandate the technology. Rather, its adoption hinged on if or when the state passed an all-encompassing law governing the devices, per the resolution. (In February 2020, Gov. Tony Evers passed a law outlining body camera regulations for police agencies.) passed A note on semantics here: According to the city of Kenosha's Code of General Ordinances, the council adopts both ordinances and resolutions with its legislative authority, though the latter are temporary in nature and often used for establishing fees and permits, while the former are municipal laws. Calling the March 2017 measure about body cameras an ordinance, like the claim alleged, was incorrect; it did not create an enforceable policy. Code of General Ordinances Next, we searched for any proof to confirm or deny another aspect of the claim: that the city had not purchased the devices as of August 2020. We learned that was true. A February 2020 story by Kenosha News said neither the city police department nor the Kenosha county Sheriff's Department used body-worn cameras. And the day after Blake's shooting, on Aug. 24, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian confirmed to reporters that the city had not yet purchased the technology but had plans to do so. story confirmed Lastly, we looked for documentation of those efforts that would tell us if the city was indeed preparing to spend the money in 2022 and then deploy the cameras after that. For that step, Snopes reviewed the city's 2020 operating budget, which included a four-year plan for spending on police department projects. That 445-page document included the below-displayed table and confirmed that the city was indeed preparing to spend $200,000 on police body cameras in 2022. 445-page document  Rocco LaMacchia, chairman of the councils public safety committee, told The Associated Press the city initially planned to buy the devices in 2020, but funding shortfalls and technological concerns prompted the city to delay the purchase for two years. We have moved it back so many times, he said in the Aug. 25, 2020, story. I got a feeling this is going to move up on the ladder really fast because of whats going on around the United States right now." The Associated Press In sum, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehood. It was accurate to claim Kenosha leaders unanimously endorsed the use of body cameras in 2017, though it was false to say they created an enforceable policy, or an ordinance, to require all police officers to wear the devices. Additionally, it was true to assert the city had not bought the devices as of August 2020 and was planning to make the purchase in 2022. Mathewson, Kevin.  "Urge The Mayor To Include Funding For Police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) In The 2018 CIP."
  City of Kenosha.  Accessed 26 August 2020. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "Senate Bill 50."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Police Department.  "2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Zampanti, Jeffrey.  "Body Cameras Gaining Popularity Despite Challenges."
  Kenosha News.  29 February 2020. Foley, Ryan.  "Kenosha Delayed Body Cameras For Years Before Black Shooting."
 The Associated Press.  25 August 2020. Kenosha News.  "In Photos: County Board Committees Consider Body Cams For Sheriff's Department."
  17 July 2020. Kenosha News. "Body Camera Funds Shouldn't Go By The Wayside."
  27 March 2020. Jones, Meg and Joe Taschler. "Less Than 3 Minutes Passed Between When Kenosha Police Arrived And When Jacob Blake Was Shot, According To Dispatch Audio."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 25 August 2020. Bosman, Julie, and Sarah Mervosh.  "Wisconsin Reels After Police Shooting And Second Night of Protests."
 The New York Times.  24 August 2020. In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies.