White House Psych Out
FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015
An image purportedly showing NASA astronaut Chris Hadfield holding a bag of marijuana aboard the International Space Station (ISS) was posted by the "Pictures in History" Facebook page in November 2018, along with a caption stating that the astronaut was testing the effects of the drug in space: Facebook   Although followers might expect to see genuine historical images being posted by a social media page named "Pictures in History," that account frequently shares manipulated or miscaptioned images. In this case, an image of Hadfield holding a bag of Easter Eggs was doctored in order to make it appear as if the astronaut were showing off a pouch of marijuana frequently shares manipulated miscaptioned The genuine image was originally posted to Hadfield's Twitter account on Easter in 2013: posted   Not only is the image of Chris Hadfield holding a bag of marijuana fake, but it's unlikely that any similar (but genuine) photographs of astronauts with drug paraphernalia exist, as NASA has been a drug-free workplace since at least the mid-1980s.  drug-free workplace Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has also warned against drug use aboard the International Space Station, arguing that it could be deadly for astronauts to get stoned in space: warned "The problem is, in space now, many things will kill you. So, if you do anything to alter your understanding of what is reality, that's not in the interest of your health. If you want to get high in space, lock yourself in your cabin, and don't come out. 'Cause you could break stuff inadvertently." Koren, Marina.  "Reefer Madness at NASA."
  The Atlantic.  21 November 2018.  Specktor, Brandon.  "Neil deGrasse Tyson Reminds Us Why Smoking Weed in Space Is a Bad Idea."
  Live Science.  17 September 2018. Claim:   Photograph shows a tearful World War II veteran embracing a wounded Marine.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2004] Picture worth a 1000 words...and, really, no words needed! We truly take a lot for granted. Forget the football "heroes"... and pass this on, please.    Origins:  This moving photograph of a World War II veteran overcome with emotion while embracing a wounded Marine is a cropped version of a photograph which originally appeared in newspapers in November 2004:  The occasion of this photograph was a Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on 11 November 2004.  The veteran pictured is Houston James, a survivor of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the Marine is Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr., a member of an ordnance-disposal team who lost his left eye, his left hand, the thumb and index finger of his right hand, and his right leg as a result of injuries sustained while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July 2003. The Dallas Morning News revisited the subjects of this iconic photograph in 2011, reporting that: In the photograph, an elderly, jacketed survivor of Pearl Harbor embraces a decorated Marine, overcome with emotion as the younger serviceman returns the gesture with an artificial hand. The setting is the plaza in front of Dallas City Hall at the conclusion of the 2004 Veterans Day Parade. The powerful portrait, originally published in The Dallas Morning News, found its way around the world, beloved by many a veterans organization for the collective bond of service and sacrifice it illustrates Houston James is 87 now. He uses a walker to get around. His home is an assisted-living facility in Mesquite, and his wife, Marian, has been gone a long while. "I forgot all about that photo," he said. Military memorabilia populates his apartment  patches, decals, history books. A VHS copy of the Pearl Harbor film Tora! Tora! Tora! sits on a shelf. The picture, he said, was taken at a parade downtown. He doesn't recall the year.  He taps the photograph with a finger. "I was walking by," he said. "He was up on the reviewing stand. I spotted him." And then he saw the man's prosthesis. The Marine is retired Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke of Flower Mound, who, as part of an ordnance-disposal team in Iraq, lost his hand, leg and eye while attempting to defuse a bomb in 2003. His mission was to keep roads free of explosive devices. On July 2, as he worked on a piece of unexploded material, it went off in his left hand. Graunke, who now works for JPMorgan Chase in Coppell, had opted for ordnance-disposal duty after a stint as a Marine Security Guard. He did not respond to requests for an interview. But on his LinkedIn profile, he writes: "I wanted to do something that was going to challenge me both mentally and physically. That is just what I got." "I strive for perfection in everything I do and I have no regrets for anything I have done," Graunke goes on. "Life is full of ups and downs and it is how you deal with those situations that will define you as an individual." In July 2007, a Dallas builder named a city block in Staff Sgt. Graunke's honor and donated a portion of the proceeds from home sales to charities selected by him: A Dallas builder, Brandenburg Homes, will construct 16 homes on the block, now known as the Mark Graunke Jr. Addition. The builder will donate $3,000 for each home sold, divided equally between three charities Graunke selected  the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, Fisher House and the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, all of which helped him recover from his injuries, he said. Last updated:  11 November 2013    Ramirez, Marc.  "Morning News Photograph United Two Servicemen Across Generations."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 November 2011.    Rogers, Rick.  "Thoughts of Iraq Ride in Parade of Veterans."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  12 November 2004.    Unmuth, Katherine Leal.  "Homebuilder Donates Part of Proceeds to Honor Marine."   The Dallas Morning News.  27 July 2007. In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre.  Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park.     "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said.      Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.       Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.     "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook  page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.       web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful. Gov. Chris Christie wants to increase state spending in the coming fiscal year, but he claims the proposed budget is smaller than the one in place when he took office in January 2010.The governor made that point in a Feb. 21 speech before state legislators and other officials, when he unveiled his proposed $32.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2013, which begins July 1. The adjusted budget for the current fiscal year stands at roughly $30.9 billion.The budget I propose would total $32.1 billion for the coming year, Christie said. While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.PolitiFact New Jersey was interested in whether state spending was higher two years ago, and a state Treasury Department spokesman showed us the numbers that back up Christies claim.The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is smaller than the fiscal year 2010 budget in place around the time Christie took office -- but just barely. The difference between the two budgets is about $5 million.Lets break down the numbers.Christie, a Republican, was sworn into office on Jan. 19, 2010 -- in the middle of fiscal year 2010, which began under former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Two months later, the new governor introduced his budget for fiscal year 2011.To support the governors statement, Treasury spokesman Andrew Pratt pointed out how the fiscal year 2010 budget when Christie took office was $32.151 billion. That figure represented the adjusted budget as of March 16, 2010, according to a Treasury report at the time.The governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 is $32.146 billion, according to a recent budget summary. As such, his statement is true, Pratt told us.So, the proposed budget is roughly $5 million less than the level of state spending when Christie took office, marking a decrease of 0.016 percent. Thats not a lot of money, but it still means Christies statement is correct.But theres a major reason for why the fiscal year 2010 budget was larger than the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013: federal stimulus dollars.That adjusted budget of $32.151 billion for fiscal year 2010 included $2.289 billion worth of appropriations supported by stimulus funds. Those stimulus funds were used to help close a projected budget shortfall.Without those stimulus dollars, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would be larger than the budget in place when Christie took office.Our rulingIn his Feb. 21 budget speech, Christie claimed in regard to his proposed fiscal year 2013 budget: While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.According to state Treasury documents, Christie is accurate. The proposed budget is $32.146 billion -- about $5 million less than the $32.151 billion spending plan in place when Christie took office.We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: was announced Donald Trump tweet They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries.   The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. long-spanning misinformation campaign Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote "dumps" helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. similar assertions key battleground states As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls  to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19  increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. Georgia law The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Associated Press Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes.  In regards to the president's assertion regarding a "dump" of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims.  "Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times," the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. news release Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: reported Its still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. "Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties," the newspaper reported.  At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit.   At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of States office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously "finding" 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of states office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there werent found ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterdays totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday.   In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim "false." Claim:  During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.'  Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly.  As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism.  Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record.  It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans.  Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless.   Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins:  This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he  said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've  got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates  corporate tax rates  on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.  I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things  fair distribution and robust economic growth  are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated:  17 August 2008    Sources:   Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008  (P. A1).    Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'"   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008. Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the "mainstream media" intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed:  It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that "government agencies" participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: claiming At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story  that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene  as "bullshit." Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: investigation It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that "governmental agencies" were party to the conspiracy: verdict THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: report John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, "I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?" And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, "Killing the Dream" made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, "It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it." The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the "U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination." (In the event, the verdict referred only to "governmental agencies" rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: statement There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the "allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible": After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination. Yellin, Emily.  "Memphis Jury Sees Conspiracy in Martin Luther King's Killing"
  The New York Times.  9 December 1999. Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours): article A member of the First Family will face fraud charges early in 2017, but it isnt who you might think. President Obama is certainly guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending hes a Christian and Michelle Obama is certainly guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and 200 staffers she keeps to walk her dog and weed her garden on the taxpayers dime, but they seem to be impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, isnt going to be so lucky. It seems that while putting in her paperwork to go to school at Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who recently turned 18, lied on her financials and failed to disclose the $9 million she has ion the bank. Thats not an issue with the school, as shes going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it didnt bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thats because Malia decided that she would fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff just because shes not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets: About Page   DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and can in no way be verified, conservatives tend to not reads below the pictures of Patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to the Facebook page to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?": meme   The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true. blended out expelled streaking anti-Trump website attacked purchasing marijuana. America's Last Line of Defense.  "An Obama Was Just Indicted for Fraud -- But Its Not Who You Think."
  December 2016. On March 22, 2022, we began investigating a crypto scam on a Facebook page that posed as Crypto.com, a cryptocurrency exchange company, and asked for donations for Ukraine. The Facebook page was named Crypto.com/Nft. However, the company named Crypto.com had nothing to do with it. crypto scam Facebook Crypto.com Ukraine Crypto.com/Nft We notified Meta by email and were told by a company spokesperson that the page would soon be coming down. Meta is Facebook's parent company. Meta The person or people managing the page bought paid advertising on Facebook in order to run the scam. The ad was approved, and was displayed for at least three days. scam The ad The page was created on March 18, and the ad began running the next day. We noted that the same ad was still active as of March 22.  The "Ad Library" for the crypto scam Facebook page showed that it had been active for at least three days.  By March 22, the page had racked up 228 likes and 5,368 followers. The post that was created for the Facebook ad had also been liked nearly 1,000 times. The ad from the Crypto.com/Nft Facebook page asked for donations for Ukraine and provided a specific wallet address. It appeared like this: Ukraine  The scammers pretended to be with Crypto.com in order to execute their plan.  It read as follows: Crypto.com would like to support Ukraine with 100k USDT together with its community!Join us! Every amount you donate in Ethereum we top up to 100k USDT. Donate ETH only to0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854 We will exchange it to USDT while transferring funds to Ukraine.#ukraine #ETHEREUM Once again, this is a scam. The page was created four days before we filed this report. Also, it claimed to be affiliated with Crypto.com, even though it was not. Both of these were red flags. The requested amount of "100k USDT" in the ad is equivalent to about $100,000. According to Blockchain.com, as of March 22, 0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854, the wallet address mentioned in the ad, had received around $32,279.94 in funds since April 2021. It's unclear how much of those funds were brought in based on other scams that had nothing to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which began in late February. equivalent According to Blockchain.com Russia's invasion of Ukraine In previous reporting, we exposed four other crypto scams, all of which were hosted by Facebook or Instagram. We also have seen a handful of others pop up as paid ads. four other crypto scams Instagram We alerted Crypto.com about the scam Facebook page. A company spokesperson said that the address used by the scammers was not a Crypto.com wallet address and that no Crypto.com account holders had transferred funds to it. To make donations to legitimate organizations to help the people in Ukraine, we recommend visiting our previous article that documented four good causes that are accepting funds. Ukraine article Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know Shortly after this story was published on March 22, 2022, a Facebook company spokesperson confirmed to us by email that the page would soon be coming down. Following the 14 February 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland Florida, people began posting information about planned school walkouts and protests, frequently with the hashtags #schoolwalkout or #nationalschoolwalkout. Readers wrote in confused about the various dates promoted by different groups. Below is a breakdown of planned events. On 20 and 21 February 2018, students from at least 50 high schools in South Florida participated in a walkout in one of at least two regional demonstrations staged by students in response to the shooting in Parkland. The Sun Sentinel reported: participated Perhaps the largest crowd came Wednesday [21 February 2018] afternoon when teens from various schools all converged on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, where authorities say Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 people. The demonstrators long lines snaked for several city blocks, visible through the aerial images captured by news helicopters. Drivers passing by honked their horns in support ... U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was outside Marjory Stoneman praising students. You all are so strong and you are so articulate, Nelson told the students as they nodded. Keep that message going on, because if you dont, itll get swallowed up into the same ol same ol, just like its been. 14 March 2018 Women's March Youth EMPOWER, an organization sponsored by the Women's March Network  which planned large-scale protests the day after Donald Trump's inauguration and a year afterwards  is planning a walkout for 14 March. It would be for 17 minutes, one minute for each of the people killed in the Parkland shooting:  sponsored     24 March 2018 Survivors of the 14 February shooting at Margery Stoneman Douglas High School and other students are planning a protest in Washington, D.C., called "March for Our Lives." The event has caught the interest of celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey and George and Amal Clooney, who have donated large amounts of money to the event. "Sister marches" will take place in cities around the world.  students event world 20 April 2018 The most highly publicized walkout appears to be planned for 20 April 2018, the 19th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. Details about the event vary across social media from a full-day absence to signing children out (or having students walk out) at the time the Columbine massacre occurred. At least one high school has threatened disciplinary action against any student participating in a school walkout. threatened On Facebook, a "No Kids Left" event was scheduled for 20 April 2018, which urged parents to keep their children out of school for the entire day: event Parents and Caregivers, please keep your children out of the classroom on Friday, April 20, 2018, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine HS massacre. This will be a simulation of the extreme outcome if we continue to only offer thoughts & prayers when our children are murdered at school. #nokidsleft Together lets send a message to our representatives & the current administration in Washington to take action. I'm a mom who doesn't know what else to do, but we must do something. Please share this event & RSVP to show your solidarity. Please help families who cannot afford to stay home from work by offering your service of child care. NOTE: We are working with www.noshootings.com to make the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting a day when no kids get shot because no kids will be at school. The Twitter account @schoolwalkoutUS, created in February 2018 provided a date of 20 April and clarified that the event was separate from the 24 March demonstrations: @schoolwalkoutUS On Friday, April 20th we want students to attend school and then promptly WALK-OUT at 10:00 am. Sit outside your schools and peacefully protest. Make some noise. Voice your thoughts. "We are students, we are victims, we are change."  National School Walkout (@schoolwalkoutUS) February 17, 2018 February 17, 2018  We contacted event organizers for clarification, and National School Walkout responded: Hello, The Walkout is real. It will take place at 10:00 a.m. on the anniversary of the Columbine killings, April 20th, and will be an opportunity for young people to send a clear message that we will not tolerate inaction on gun violence. Other organizations are planning similar events and protests. We fully endorse those events as well, and we hope that together we can end the violence that terrorizes our country. Chokey, Aric, Juan Ortega and Brett Clarkson.  "'Enough Is Enough,' Students Chant As Thousands Stage Walkouts Across South Florida."
  Sun Sentinel.  21 February 2018. Williams, David.  "Schools Threaten To Punish Students Who Join Walkouts Over Gun Control."
  CNN.  21 February 2018. Women's March.  "ENOUGH: National School Walkout."
  Accessed 22 February 2018.