Michelle Obama volunteering at a soup kitchen
Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009.
Claim:  Zero Population Growth terrorists are boobytrapping men's toilers with razors.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000]  from: SeigerB@fbihq.wash.dc.fed.gov.usato: SAIC-All Field Officessubject: Important Operational Warning Notice 29 September 2000 From: Bertrand Seiger, Special Agent in Charge      Domestic Terrorism Division      Headquarters Field Office      Washington D.C. This message is classified at Security Level 3BFile Copy Only To Be Maintained. No Duplication Permitted Operational Immediate:   Pass this information along immediately to all field agents, office staff, and support personel, special attention to notification of male staff members.   It has now been verified that a new radical splinter group has broken from the main group of the Zero Population Movement. This new group, calling itself simply "No More!" has started to conduct a campaign of domestic terrorism, aimed at reducing the human population of this planet.   All staff are hereby advised to use extreme caution when using any public or semi-public restroom facilities, especially male staff members.   A confirmed 172 cases of maiming have occurred, with 13 resulting in the death of the victim. Many more cases are pending confirmation.    The "No More" group has designed an insidious device that they have been placing in the toilets in public restrooms across the nation. 6 have been found in limited access buildings.    The devices consist of a straight razor, a springload mechanism, and a pressure senser. The devices are cleverly hidden underneath the rim of the toilet bowl, and are not visible except by close inspection from inside the space of the bowl.    When a subject weighing over 120 pounds sits on the toilet, the pressure senser connected to the toilet seat activates within 5 to 12 seconds, causing the springloaded razor to sweep across the forward half of the toilet.    This results in extreme trauma to, or complete severing from the body of the victims testicles.   In 102 cases, this has also resulted in the loss or damage of between 6 and 54% of the victims penis.   3 female victims have also suffered minor lacerations. One to the buttocks, and two to the back of the thighs.   Plans are being formulated to share this information with state and local law enforcement agencies as soon as it is feasable, without chancing widespread panic amongst the civilian population.   Information gathered by the Detroit Field Office also indicates that plans are in the works to install these devices in private residences. Members of "No More" plan to install the devices while in the guise of service providers, such as plumblers. There is no evidence yet to indicate that this practice has yet started.   Inform all staff soonest. Staff on their days off should be contacted at home. Every effort should be made to also contact staff on vacation, medical or disability leave, or any other leave of absence.   I cannot stress strongly enough the danger that this poses.  message endsc/:22ab.9 Origins:  This bit of silliness began making the online rounds at the end of September 2000 and is another example of hoaxsters' preying upon deep-rooted fears of  castration. Once again, our toilets are supposedly turning against us: 1999's deadly lurking butt spiders have been replaced with a spring-loaded slice-o-matic with a jones for johnsons. butt spiders Despite the dire-sounding, badly-spelled e-mail quoted above, no such cases have been reported anywhere. This lack of reportage is tangentally alluded to as an effort to keep everything hush-hush so as not to cause a "widespread panic amongst the civilian population." Rest assured the media would have broken such a story if any such attacks had come to the attention of even one reporter. It's equally ludicrous to assume the families of the thirteen men who supposedly lost their lives in this fashion would stand silently by, neither raising a public outcry to warn others, nor attempting to hold anyone accountable for the loss of their loved ones. Barbara "all cisterns are go!" Mikkelson Last updated:  22 January 2015 Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat and former U.S. Representative running to reclaim a seat in 2012, emerged a big-time supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement after appearing on HBO'sReal Time with Bill Maheron Oct. 7, 2011.A couple of Maher's panelists, and even Maher himself, mocked the protesters for their worrisome bathroom situation, lack of media spokesperson, name choice, and proficiency (or lack thereof) in economics. Saying he was a former economist, Grayson jumped in, saying he had no problem understanding the protesters' grievances.They're complaining about the fact that Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that, he said. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying 20 percent of our national net worth accumulated over the course of two centuries. They're upset about the fact that Wall Street has iron control over the economic policies of this country. And that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. And the other party caters to them as well. That's what they're upset about.It gets more interesting. P.J. O'Rourke, a political theorist and author, said, Get the man a bongo drum. They've found their spokesman, okay. Take your shoes off, get a bongo drum, forget where to go to the bathroom, and it's yours. He got a few laughs. Then Grayson shot back with this:Listen, if I am a spokesman for all the people who think we should not have 24 million people in this country who can't find a full-time job, that we should not have 50 million people in this country who can't see a doctor when they're sick, that we shouldn't have 47 million people in this country who need government help in order to feed themselves, and we shouldn't have 15 million families who owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home, okay, I'll be that spokesman.Maher's audience gave Grayson a standing ovation. His retort popped up on YouTube and then spread through Facebook and Twitter. Liberal bloggers praised him for his succinct explanation. You can see the video cliphere.We decided to check Grayson's litany of claims about the economic plight of many Americans. (We previously checked a claim from Michael Moorethat gets at Grayson's other major point, that no one associated with the 2008 economic collapse was arrested or indicted. )We'll take the economic claims one by one.24 million people in this country can't find a full-time jobA similar claim -- More than 25 million Americans are unemployed -- was presented in an article in the protester-producedOccupied Wall Street Journal, which we examined in a fact-checkhere.Grayson was wise to distinguish between the number of people who are unemployed and those who can't find a full-time job.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14 million Americans were unemployed as of September 2011, which is how officials determine the unemployment rate. We pointed out in our fact-check that BLS methodology has been criticized for not expanding the definition of unemployment so that it includes people who have stopped looking for work or who are working part time, even though they would rather have a full-time job.An alternative measure called the U-6 paints that picture. As of September, an additional 2.5 million Americans were deemed marginally attached to the labor force, and another 9.3 million are working part time but would prefer a full-time job. That adds up to 25.8 million people.In our item, we pointed out theOccupy Wall Street Journalarticle described the expanded definition of unemployment, not the traditional one. Grayson's statement is a little low at 24 million but more precise in its definition.50 million people in this country can't see a doctor when they're sickAgain, this is close to what is cited by theOccupied Wall Street Journalarticle but is a little different. That story claimed more than 50 million live without health insurance, and we found that they were almost exactly right. A U.S. Census Bureau study called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2010,found that49.9 million Americans were uninsured in 2010. That's about 16 percent of the population.While Grayson's statement isn't exactly the same, his point seems clear enough to us.47 million people in this country need government help in order to feed themselvesGrayson is talking about what we know as food stamps, which has been called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since 2008. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds SNAP and the states administer it, sometimes by other names. The economic recession has forced more people into the program since 2008, and the numbers are climbing, according to thisannual summary.In fiscal year 2008, 28.2 million people received nearly $35 billion worth of benefits. The program served 33.4 million in FY 2009 and 40.3 million in FY 2010.Themost recent participation figure,for July 2011, is 45,344,946 people, with the most recent monthly allotment per household at $283.68. That enrollment figure isn't the program's highest number, but it's just 65,737 people short of the May 2011 record.We are dealing with historic participation, said Regan Hopper, USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman.Grayson's figure is pretty close.He probably wasn't accounting for other government food programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children -- better known as WIC -- in his tally. But that USDA program provides low-income pregnant, post-partum and breastfeeding women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, with checks for certain kinds of food to supplement their diets.WIC served8.9 million in July 2011, said Regan Hopper, a USDA Food and Nutrition Service spokeswoman. Further, USDA funds school lunch and breakfast programs, which provide free and reduced-price meals to some schoolchildren, and provides food and money through its Emergency Food Assistance Program to states for distribution in food banks, soup kitchens and the like.15 million families owe more on their mortgage than the value of their homeThis housing phenomenon is also referred to as being underwater or upside down in mortgage payments. We asked a few companies that keep databases of mortgages and home loans, usually public records in counties, for the financial and property industries.Seattle-based Zillow.com puts the latest figure for these homes at 26.8 percent for the second quarter, which ended in June. That amounts to 15.3 million homes. It's down slightly from Zillow's first-quarter analysis, which put the number of underwater homes at 28.4 percent, or 16.2 million.We posed the same question to CoreLogic,a Sana Ana, Calif. firm.In a study released in September, CoreLogic reported that 22.5 percent of all homes with a mortgage were in negative equity in the same period. CoreLogic's number is roughly 5 million homes fewer than Zillow's, coming in at 10.9 million. The company found another 2.4 million borrowers at the brink of negative equity, or having less than 5 percent equity. You may have noticed some disparity with those estimates. Corelogic's data includes 48 million properties with a mortgage, accounting for more than 85 percent of all mortgages in the country. Zillow.com tries to provide an estimate for the country's total number of homes with outstanding mortgages, estimated by the U.S. Census bureau to be 50 million to 55 million. So part of the difference could lie in the 15 percent of homes CoreLogic does not cover. There are also estimation errors to consider, said Zillow.com chief economist Stan Humphries, particularly in guessing the value of homes and current outstanding loan balance. A difference of about 4 percent between the companies' estimates is not really significant, he said. We think this is a critically important metric in understanding the housing market, he said. The point remains that economists have never seen housing values fall so low. Housing data is scant for the Great Depression, but Humphries believes the ongoing crisis outranks that period. He says Depression-era down payments were higher in the 1930s, giving folks some cushion as the crisis set in. Our rulingGrayson's defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement earned him praise from the left-wing blosophere and pundits for its pith. No pundit or officialin the movement's first monthhad quite articulated the protesters' qualms -- high unemployment, expensive health care, poverty and underwater mortgage payments -- as Grayson did in 20 seconds on Maher's show.We examined each of his economic claims and found them accurate, point for point. We rate his claim True. On Aug. 16, 2022, we received mail from our readers that asked if Facebook pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans were legitimately giving away or donating hundreds of refrigerators and ovens. The truth was that these pages were nothing more than the first step of potentially dangerous survey scams. The scammers appeared to be based in Indonesia. The posts showed pictures of refrigerators and ovens (ranges) with the caption, "We are happy to announce that we will be donating 670 refrigerators and cookers which cannot be sold due to a few scratches and minor damage, all machines are in working order, so we will send them randomly to someone who writes 'DONE' before August 19th!"  A search of Facebook for the words Target Fans and the lowercase and special characters ??????? ???? showed dozens of pages that were hosting the survey scams. Target Fans ??????? ???? Survey scams like the one for the Target refrigerators giveaway are a specific kind of ruse. They promise big prizes up front, but then lead to a seemingly endless number of surveys with other tantalizing prizing promises, such as a $750 transfer via the mobile finance app, Cash App. Usually, the scammers who created the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that might land them small amounts of commission. Target At the same time, survey scams can also be quite dangerous, reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize  something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a free trial offer thats actually a costly subscription for a dietary supplement or other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use for identity theft or sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing our article with family members or friends who might be susceptible to falling for this kind of a Target or Walmart Facebook scam. In sum, no, Target and Walmart weren't giving away or donating refrigerators or ovens on Facebook on pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans. Walmart Facebook Source: Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information. AARP, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. Claim:  Harvard is offering tuition-free education to African-American students majoring in the sciences.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Greetings: A quick note about an exciting scholarship opportunity In case you know anyone who might be interested... Harvard University wants to get the word out the University has a massive science endowment for African American (High School Juniors/Seniors) who are interested in majoring in the sciences, Chem, Biology, Physics etc. A four year tuition free education at Harvard Univ. (regardless of parents income)! The professor to contact for more info. is:  Professor Gregory Tucci,tucci@fas.Harvard.edu617-496-4668. If you know any African American junior or senior students who excel and are passionate for the sciences please pass along this info  Origins:  This item promoting a "massive science endowment" that supposedly provides "four year tuition free educations" for African-American science students at Harvard has been circulating since at least mid-2009 and has been reprinted in a number of online bulletins and newsletters that publish information about educational opportunities.  Although Harvard does provide a number of financial aid opportunities that prospective students might qualify for, a completely tuition-free, four-year program for African-American students majoring in the sciences is not among them, according to the professor whose name, address, and phone number have been attached to this item: Thank you very much for your interest in financial support for students interested in the sciences at Harvard University.  Unfortunately the information you received regarding "four year tuition free education ... regardless of parent's income" appears to be a hoax.     Additionally, I am not involved in admissions or financial aid. Harvard has very generous financial aid support for all students who qualify on the basis of need.  On a very positive note, families with incomes below $60,000 need not contribute to the cost of sending their children to Harvard.   Further, families with incomes up to $180,000 with assets typical for the income level need not pay more than 10 percent of their incomes.  No student should be discouraged from applying to Harvard because of financial concerns.  The Financial Aid Office is always eager to work with talented students to make sure they receive the financial support that will make a Harvard education possible for them.  For more information, please visit the financial aid web site: https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/, or call 617-495-1581. https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/ Additional information:     Financial Aid Overview  (Harvard College)  Last updated:  27 March 2010 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. In the weeks after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on 14 February 2018, killing seventeen people, Internet trolls and "hoaxers" continued to share an already completely debunked rumor that David Hogg  a teenaged survivor of the mass shooting who has since become an outspoken advocate of gun control  is actually a professional actor who went to school in southern California:   As Hogg's classmates have pointed out and as we reported previously, the above meme is a very low-quality, low-effort Internet hoax  the photograph actually confirms that Hogg is legitimately an Marjory Stone Douglas High School student because the image was taken from MSD's yearbook, a fact that could be gleaned from another student in the very same image wearing an MSD "Eagles" mascot shirt two rows above him: reported previously Theres a photo going around claiming David Hogg did not attend Douglas, but a school in California. Heres a video to debunk that: pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF  Joey (@_Joey_Wong) February 21, 2018 February 21, 2018  Hogg had visited California in 2017 and witnessed an altercation, about which he made a video blog  a simple fact that was blown out by conspiracy theorists to mean he already lived in Los Angeles and was part of the entertainment industry. (Hogg did live in California, but relocated with his family to Florida before starting high school; he returns to visit every year, as many people do.)  video blog Nikolas Cruz, 19, a former Marjory Stone Douglas student who used an AR-15 semi-automatic firearm he had reportedly purchased from a gun store to carry out the mass shooting, has since been charged with murder; Parkland students have galvanized a national movement calling for stricter gun legislation. Hogg has been one of the most vocal leaders in what has become known as the "March For Our Lives." known as The students' activism has made them the target of "hoaxers"  deranged Internet users and grifters who spread false information that mass shooting incidents are manufactured by the government to seize guns and hand power to a secret global cabal working to install an authoritarian world government. hoaxers Such hoaxers have periodically been arrested and jailed for physically stalking and harassing survivors, but despite their outlandish beliefs and apparent moral debasement, they are not exactly the "fringe." Far-right web sites and Internet personalities like GatewayPundit.com writer Lucian Wintrich, undeterred by ongoing lawsuits related to previous conspiracy theory-related blunders, have claimed the Parkland students were reading from scripts, while the National Rifle Association said in an official statement in response to a nationwide march on 24 March 2018 that the events were staged by "Hollywood elites." arrested jailed stalking ongoing lawsuits blunders claimed statement DAngelo, Bob.  "NRA: March Fueled By 'Gun-Hating Billionaires and Hollywood Elites.'"
Dayton Daily News.  25 March 2018. Herman, John. "The Making of a No. 1 YouTube Conspiracy Video After the Parkland Tragedy."
The New York Times.  21 February 2018. Chavez, Nicole.  "School Shooting Survivor Knocks Down 'Crisis Actor' Claim."
CNN.  21 February 2018. In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. Seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, Republican nominee Donna Campbell of Columbus paints him as a career politician with some questionable positions. In an ad posted online Oct. 19, the narrator compares Doggett and Campbell, an emergency room doctor. They disagree on ObamaCare: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says repeal. Stimulus spending: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says it's a waste of money. Cap and trade: Doggett voted yes, Campbell says job killer. We're not weighing in on whether the stimulus was a waste of money, or if cap and trade is a job killer. But since earlier this month we ratedTrueDoggett's statement that he voted against big bank bailouts, we were curious whether Campbell accurately recapped his votes on other high-dollar issues. Amanda Tyler, Doggett's campaign manager, told us by e-mail that Doggett voted for each piece of legislation, though the campaign has reservations about the visuals in Campbell's ad; for example, she said, a shot of a foreclosure sign doesn't make sense in connection with his vote for stimulus aid. Let's review Doggett's votes one at a time. Health care On Nov. 7, 2009, the U.S. House voted on its version of health care legislation in a 220-215 vote. Doggett joined 218 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, in passing the legislation. On March 21, 2010 , Doggett voted for legislation reconciling Senate and House versions of the proposal. The compromise passed 220-211, with no Republicans in support. Doggett said in a floor speech with this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured. We later rated that statement asTrue. Stimulus On Jan. 28, 2009, the House passed the $819 billion economic recovery bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Doggett voted aye. One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by promoting educational opportunity, he said on the House floor the day before. $13.5 billion of targeted tax relief to help young people and not-so young people attend college. Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify for this assistance. But because we provided a refundable tax credit, we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid. We asked Campbell's campaign why it showed an image of foreclosure sign while describing Doggett's vote for the stimulus legislation. Mike Asmus, Campbell's campaign manager, told us the stimulus spending Lloyd Doggett has voted for has prolonged the narrative of economic malaise, running from joblessness to foreclosure and beyond. Cap and trade Doggett voted for a cap-and-trade measure aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. With Doggett's vote, that proposal cleared the House 219-212 on June 26, 2009, though Doggett also aired objections about the measure being too soft, saying the plan stripped too much oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency and encouraged new coal-fired plants. I struggled deeply about whether to support this flawed bill, but I finally determined that voting for it was my best hope for making it better, he said on the floor that day. I've been listening to the debate  not so much to those who support a bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the Flat Earth Society and the climate-change deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge. Tyler also told us that Doggett hoped to improve the bill by being tapped to serve as a House member of a possible House-Senate conference committee on the plan. That panel never was named; the House-approved bill stalled in the Senate. Our vote? The ad's imagery might be objectionable (at least to Doggett). He still gave his 'aye' for all the legislation cited by Campbell. We rate her statement True. During an all-candidates Democratic forum in Rock Hill, S.C., on Nov. 6, 2015, host Rachel Maddow of MSNBC asked Bernie Sanders how he could win the support of African-American voters, a crucial Democratic voting group in the early primary state of South Carolina. Maddow noted that Sanders was polling at 8 percent in a recent poll in South Carolina and asked if he would be able to convince African-American voters that he could press for their issues. Sanders responded in part by citing his economic platform, which he said would positively impact African-Americans. I have the economic and social justice agenda now that, once we get the word out, will, in fact, resonate with the African-American community,Sanders said. We're talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Over half of the black workers in this country earn less. We wondered whether Sanders was right that over half of the black workers in this country earn less than $15 an hour. So we took a closer look. We turned to themost recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which, among other things, tracks the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by race. The bureaus data for the third quarter of 2015 shows that the median weekly earnings for African-American workers was $624. If you divide that by the standard 40 hours in a workweek, it works out to $15.60 per hour. That means that half of African-American workers earned less than $15.60. So Sanders was close on this but exaggerated slightly. His claim is off by a little more than 4 percent. When we asked Sanders campaign for their source, they pointed us to areportissued earlier this month from the National Employment Law Project that found that 54.1 percent of African-American workers earned less than $15.00 an hour. The group calculated that figure using data from 2012 through 2014. Thats a reasonable measurement, but while our figure covers a briefer period of time, its also more current, reflecting the continued economic growth since the end of 2014. Our ruling Sanders said that over half of the black workers in this country earn less than $15 an hour. Depending on the time frame used, the data shows that roughly half of black workers earn less than $15. The most recent data shows that half earn less than $15.60, which is a little higher than what Sanders said, but his number is not far off. We rate his claim Mostly True. On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, bringing extended heavy rainfall, flooding, and, of course, rumors and scams in its wake. Hurricane Harvey landfall flooding One such rumor involved high-paying Federal Emergency Management Agency jobs ("FEMA Field Inspectors") purportedly created by the storm. Readers forwarded various versions of the rumor they spotted on social media, most mentioning a "Mr. Adrian Davis" recruiting a thousand workers for positions paying between $2,000 and $5,000 per week: FEMA is looking to hire help. $2000 per week plus expenses. 90 days or longer they need over 1000 people. Cannot have any felonies. 888 776 1296. Mr. Adrian Davis.True of False?I have not been able to verify this-the phone number goes from a fast busy to a regular busy.Thank you There is a post going around Facebook seeking FEMA Field Inspectors. $4-5 K per week. No experience necessary. The ad contains an error: "Will be reimburse travel"The phone number to call is 214-[redacted].All sounds too good to be true and I don't see anything similar on the FEMA website or Facebook page. Can you please check out a rumor via Facebook that FEMA is paying people up to 5,000 dollars per week to work in Houston as field inspectors. They have to call 214.[redacted] to register.Why wouldn't the FEMA hire people directly? Sounds like a HUGE scam to me!! The rumor spread quickly, thanks to its plausible premise of FEMA being understaffed in August 2017, the high (but not impossibly so) pay described, and the ease with which one could plausibly qualify. Although some iterations listed an area code of (888) and a contact name of "Adrian Davis," others provided a 214 (Dallas-area) number which appears to have no affiliation with FEMA. A poster provided an application deadline of 31 August 2017: deadline   On 30 August 2017, the agency addressed the "FEMA Field Inspectors" rumor on its official Facebook page: FEMA linked to a Hurricane Harvey page, with an expandable section titled "Rumor Control." That section revealed that the rumor was in fact true: Rumor Control There is a lot of misinformation circulating online and because rumors spread fast please tell a friend, share this page, and help us provide accurate information. Check here often for an on-going list of rumors and their true or false status. Hiring Rumor: There are reports of a flyer titled FEMA Field Inspectors needed ASAP and states Earn $4-5K per week call (214) 284-6594 for instructions on how to apply between the hours of 9:00am  11:00am up to August 31, 2017. This report is  (August 29). FEMA is hiring field inspectors under a pre-existing contract to assist with surge capacity of field inspections. Read more about becoming a home inspector. becoming a home inspector Rumor: There are reports stating FEMA is looking to employ 1,000 people offering to pay $2,000/week for 90 days and the phone number to call is 888-776-1296. This report is . (August 29) Learn more about official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response and review a list of trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response. official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response According to FEMA, these jobs are available under a pre-existing contract "to assist with surge capacity," and the 214 number circulating is legitimate, as is the 31 August 2017 deadline. However, FEMA says the 888 number is not legitimate and the "$2,000 a week for 90 days" claim is inaccurate. We contacted the agency for further confirmation, but we have not yet received a response. FEMA.  "Hurricane Harvey: Rumor Control."
  Accessed 30 August 2017.