Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance
Claim:  In 1969, comic Red Skelton lamented on his weekly television show that the Pledge of Allegiance might someday be considered a "prayer" and eliminated from public schools.    . Example:  [Skelton, 1969] The Pledge of Allegiance: I: Me, an individual, a committee of one.  PLEDGE: Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.  ALLEGIANCE: My love and my devotion.  TO THE FLAG: Our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.  UNITED: That means that we have all come together.  STATES: Individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.  AND TO THE REPUBLIC: A state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.  FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION: One nation, meaning "so blessed by God."  INDIVISIBLE: Incapable of being divided.  WITH LIBERTY: Which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.  AND JUSTICE: The principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.  FOR ALL: For all, which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.  And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:  "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too? Origins:  Red Skelton, a veteran comic who successfully plied his trade as a sentimental clown figure in vaudeville and radio, delighted television audiences for twenty years playing characters he had perfected   on radio  Clem Kadiddlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and the Mean Widdle Kid  on his weekly variety television program, "The Red Skelton Show." The Red Skelton Show On 14 January 1969, Skelton offered his television audience his reminiscence of an incident from his schoolboy days in Indiana.  Mr. Lasswell, Skelton's teacher, felt his students had come to regard the Pledge of Allegiance as a daily drudgery to be recited by rote; they had lost any sense of the meaning of the words they were speaking. As Skelton related the story, Mr. Lasswell told his class: "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it's becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?" Skelton then delivered to his audience (accompanied by a background of string music) a stirring version of the explanation provided to his school class by their teacher so many years earlier (and a recitation of the pledge itself), as quoted above.  Skelton's explication and rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance proved to be quite popular and widely acclaimed, and in response to public demand it was issued in print and pressed into  records.  But in 1969, the Supreme Court decisions that eliminated compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools as unconstitutional, Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, were still fairly recent (having been handed down in 1963), and protests over American military involvement in Vietnam had rendered the American flag as much a symbol of divisiveness as of unity.  Skelton, a soft-spoken, sentimental personality who ended every program with the invocation "Good night, and may God bless," added a coda to Mr. Lasswell's explanation, a lamentation of the thought that the 1954 insertion of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance might someday cause it to be considered a "prayer" (and thereby eliminated from public schools as well), and given the recent appeals court ruling that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, Red Skelton's words now strike many as remarkably prescient (and perhaps more prophetic than even he imagined).  Abington School District v. Schempp Murray v. Curlett unconstitutional Skelton performed a similar explication of the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada," during a visit to that country in 1990: "O Canada": I see mountains and valleys and rivers and trees; it is truly Mother Nature's warehouse.  "Our home and native land": A place where families live with dignity on rich soil that shares food and beauty. " patriot":  Patriotism, a pride, a privilege to say, I, me, an individual, a committee of one, and dedicate all my worldly goods, to give without self-pity. "love in all thy sons command":  That powerful youth that gives all their love and devotion, holding the standard with the Maple Leaf high in the air; for it is a symbol of courage and wherever she waves, she shouts "Freedom is everybody's job." "With glowing hearts we see thee rise": A warmth that incubates incentive; wisdom that feeds beyond superstition and ignorance. "the true north strong": She is that compass needle that points to inspiring reality, and the courage to struggle on, to find a dream and make it come true. "and free": That right of power for one to live his own life without fear or stress or any sort of retaliation. "And stand on guard, O Canada": Not that we want to flaunt our strength, but to be capable of facing the strongest should that enemy appear. "We stand on guard for thee": we protect all doctrines and share thy spirit of logic and reasoning. "O Canada, glorious and free!":  That means justice, the principle and qualities of dealing fairly with others. "O Canada , we stand on guard for thee": So we can stand proud and say to our neighbor, "This is as much my country as it is yours." Both of these items are reminiscent of a Christmas segment from the "Amos 'n' Andy" radio program, one which first aired in 1930 and was repeated annually (and was filmed for the 1952 Christmas Day episode of the short-lived "Amos 'n' Andy" television series).  As Amos' daughter Arbadella lies in her bed on Christmas Eve, her father tenderly explains the meaning of the Lord's Prayer to her: ARABDELLA: I've been saying the Lord's Prayer with Mommie. What does the Lord's Prayer mean, Daddy? AMOS: The Lord's Prayer? Well, darlin', I'll 'splain it to you. It means an awful lot, and with the world like it is today, it seems to have bigger meaning than ever before. ARABDELLA: But what does the Lord's Prayer really mean, Daddy? AMOS: Now, you lay down, and you listen. The first line of the Lord's Prayer is this: "Our Father which art in Heaven"  that means Father of all that is good  where no wrong can dwell. Then it says  "Hallow'd be Thy name"  that means, darlin', that we should love an' respect all that is good. Then it says  "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven"  that means, darlin', as we clean our hearts with love, the good, the true, and the beautiful, then Earth where we are now will be like Heaven. ARABDELLA: That would be wonderful, Daddy. AMOS: Then it says  "Give us this day our daily bread"  that means to feed our hearts an' minds with kindness, with love an' courage, which will make us strong for our daily task. Then after that, the line of the Lord's Prayer is  "An' forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"  you 'member the Golden Rule? ARABDELLA: Yes, Daddy. AMOS: Well, that means we mus' keep the Golden Rule and do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. And then it says  "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"  that means, my darlin', to ask God to help us do, an' see, an' think right, so that we will neither be led nor tempted by anything that is bad. "For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory forever. Amen." That means, darlin', that all the world an' everything that's in it, belongs to God's kingdom  everything  Mommie, your Daddy, your little brother and sister, your gran'ma  you an' everybody  and, as we know that, an' act as if we know it, that, my darlin' daughter, is the real spirit of Christmas. Additional information:       The Pledge of Allegiance   ((The Red Skelton Show  14 January 1969))   Last updated:  9 March 2007    Sources:  Andrews, Bart.   Holy Mackeral!  The Amos 'n' Andy Story.  New York: E.P. Dutton, 1986.  ISBN 0-525-24354-2  (pp. 97-98).
Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. What happens when the sitting President of the United States can no longer carry out his duties due to death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacitation?  That was one of the issues addressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution back in the 18th century, but unfortunately not thoroughly so  ambiguities of wording and unanticipated circumstances have required that the Constitution be amended several times to cover situations not originally foreseen. Even today, some questions about presidential succession and eligibility remain, giving rise to various thought exercises such as the following: thought exercises  Although the particular scenario outlined in the above meme is a hypothetical, we can say that its  description of how to restore to office a President who has been impeached and removed from office would almost certainly fail in real life for practical and/or legal reasons. For openers, let's summarize the process of removing a President from office.   The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to discuss the charges against the President (similar to a grand jury pondering an indictment), prepares articles of impeachment outlining those charges, and (if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles), sends them to the full House for debate and vote.  If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment based on one or more of those articles, then the President must stand trial in the Senate.  If two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict at the culmination of that trial, the President is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be barred from holding any high governmental position again. But could the removed President's successor make use of constitutional powers to pardon him and engage a scheme to reinstall him to the presidency by appointing him Vice President?    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."  So if the Senate voted to convict a sitting President and thereby remove him from office, they could also vote to permanently disqualify him from holding federal office again.   However, none of that judgment could be undone by a presidential pardon, because Article II, Section 2 (which establishes the presidential pardon privilege) states that "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (If this were not the case, then a sitting President facing impeachment could simply pardon himself and thus avoid any punishment.) What if the Senate voted to remove a President from office but did not also vote to bar him from holding office again?  That's where the practicality part of this exercise kicks in. Let's imagine a President is impeached and removed from office, and the Vice President thereby assumes the presidency.  Now the office of Vice President is vacant and needs to be filled.  Could the just-removed President step into that role? Amendment XXV of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."  Theoretically, anyone who was  constitutionally eligible to hold office could be nominated for the VP slot.  But how likely is it that the same Congress that just voted overwhelmingly to oust a politician from the highest office in the land would then turn right around and approve appointing that same person to the second-highest office?  We'll go with "not very likely." About the only way this scenario could conceivably play out in real life would be if the following sequence of events took place: 1) A President were impeached and removed from office but not permanently barred from holding office.2) An election that altered the makeup of Congress intervened before a new Vice President could be nominated and approved.3) The results of that election tilted Congress in favor of the recently deposed President.4) The newly seated Congress opted to make one of their first acts of business the audacious re-installation to power of a President who had just been drummed out of office. All of the maneuvering described above would only get the former President as far the vice presidency.  Elevating him back into the position of chief executive would require that the current President be so pliant as to willingly step aside to make room for someone who had just been kicked out of office  an act that would have no obvious upside to it for the recently installed President (given that   achieving the presidency is generally considered the pinnacle of any politician's career).   All in all, it's possible that under an extremely contrived and convoluted sequence of events, a President who had been impeached and removed from office could regain the White House without standing for election again ... but the likelihood of circumstances lining up just right to make that happen are practically zero.   And the presidential power to pardon would be irrelevant to that process. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In late December 2020, social media users shared a meme claiming that the transition team for U.S. President-elect Joe Biden was "removed" from the Pentagon for leaking intelligence to the Chinese government:   The text of the meme reads: Last week the Biden transition team was removed from the Pentagon and now we know why. The Secretary of Defense gave disinformation to the Biden team about Naval movements in the South China Sea. Within 30 minutes the intel was leaked to the CCP. Anyone that is okay with this needs to have their head checked. Biden is in bed with China. Notably, the meme didn't include any evidence to support its claims  and there is no evidence that Biden's team was "removed" from the Pentagon or had leaked any intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party, the ruling political party in China. Had such a stunning event actually happened, we'd doubtlessly see mainstream news coverage. We found no credible news reports that the incoming presidential administration leaked intelligence to China, which would be a bombshell report. In fact, it's been an ongoing issue that outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump has not only refused to admit his electoral loss in the Nov. 3, 2020, election, but his administration has also demonstrated an unprecedented lack of cooperation with the incoming administration. cooperation On Dec. 18, 2020, Axios reported that Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller had "ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden, shocking officials across the Defense Department," citing "senior administration officials." reported Miller said in a statement that his staff had been cooperating, and would continue to do so after a "mutually-agreed upon holiday pause." Biden's team responded by stating Miller's comments were false and that they had never agreed on a holiday break in transition meetings. statement Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a Dec. 29, 2020, interview with NPR that Trump's political appointees have continued to obstruct the transition process and haven't turned over vital information pertaining to things like a massive Russian cyberattack against American government agencies or plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to the American public. interview Biden called the lack of cooperation from the Trump administration "nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility." called Possible presidential aspirant Scott Walker opens his newbookwith a dismal depiction of conditions in the nations capital. If you are like me, the view from Washington, D.C., these days is pretty grim, the Republican governor writes in Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge, which is due out Nov. 19, 2013. Barack Obama has been elected to a second term. Obamacare will not be repealed anytime soon. Congress has approved massive tax increases. Then Walker makes this claim: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Lets see how much the debt has grown and to what extent Obama is responsible. What is the debt? We hear plenty about the federal debt and annual federal budget deficits. So, lets make sure were on the same page before we dig in. Total federal debt, also known as gross debt, is the amount of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury and other federal agencies. It has two components: Debt held by the government is money the government owes itself. Mainly, the government borrows from trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare -- payments owed to beneficiaries in the future -- to fund current government operations. Debt held by the public is owed to investors outside the federal government, including individual and corporate investors in the United States and overseas, foreign governments, the Federal Reserve and other entities. It's money the government borrows when it runs annual budget deficits -- in other words, the money the government needs to bridge the gap between what it spends and what it takes in. How much is the debt? Jacquelynn Burke, a publicist for Sentinel, Walkers publisher, responded to our request to Walker for information to back his claim. She told us Walker was referring to total debt and to the portion held by the public and cited two documents from Obamas own administration, a2013 reportfrom the Council of Economic Advisers and Obamas2014 budget. Its helpful here to note that debt is tallied at the end of the fiscal year and that the federal fiscal year runs from October through September. So, fiscal 2008 started in October 2007 and ended in September 2008. The documents Walker relies on show total debt on pace to double -- from $9.99 trillion in fiscal 2008 to an estimated $20 trillion in fiscal 2016; and debt held by the public to more than double, from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion. (FactCheck.org also reports that debt held by the public ison pace to doubleduring Obamas presidency.) Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, cited the same documents Walker did when we asked him about Walkers claim. Edwards said that, even though fiscal 2008 ended more than three months before Obama was first inaugurated, it is a good starting point because most of the debt accumulated in fiscal 2009 was from Obamas stimulus plan. Joshua Gordon, policy director at the centristConcord Coalition, which advocates for fiscal responsibility, argued that a better starting point is the end of fiscal 2009 -- a year later than what Walker uses -- since Obama would have been in office for nearly nine months at that point. He also argued against examining total debt, saying that since it includes borrowing from Social Security, it doesn't really have any economic significance. Gordon cited figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for debt held by the public. They show that that portion of the total debt was $7.54 trillion at the end of fiscal 2009, but isnt projected to double until fiscal 2019, after Obama leaves office. Gordon and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the nonprofitCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan organization focused on debt reduction, also made another point on comparing debt levels over time. They told us measuring debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is better for comparison purposes than simply using raw dollars. According to Congressional Budget Office figures, debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product wont double during Obamas presidency. They show debt held by the public at the end of 2009 was equal to 52.3% of gross domestic product. Thats expected to reach 76.2% at the end of fiscal 2014, but then drop during the rest of Obamas presidency. At the same time, the federal debt is commonly reported in raw dollars, not as a percentage of GDP. So, at least in terms of raw dollars, there is evidence that debt is projected to double during Obamas time in office. Who's to blame Walker implied that Obama plays a role in how much the debt has grown, but he didnt say the president caused the increase. That squares with how weve evaluated similar claims in the past. For one thing, each president inherits the previous presidents budget, as well as the interest payments needed to pay off debts accumulated under previous presidents. Moreover, about two-thirds of the annual deficit during Obamas presidency term has been from entitlements and interest. Entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, are less susceptible to a presidents policy preferences than discretionary spending that Congress must approve on an annual basis. Entitlements are also more heavily driven by demographic factors, such as the aging of the population, which is also out of any presidents control. For its part, The White House didn't challenge Walker's claim, but cited documents indicating that annual deficits are becoming smaller. A couple of other points on responsibility for the debt before we close. Ananalysisby the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities acknowledged that deficits and debt have been sharply higher under Obama. But the analysis says the Great Recession, tax cuts adopted under President George W. Bush, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obamas watch. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, meanwhile, traces the the debt problem back even further, to around 1970, when the government decided to significantly increase spending without a corresponding increase in revenue. The problem cant be fixed, according to thatanalysis, without creating a mechanism to prevent the government from running persistent deficits in the future. Our rating Walker said: The national debt is on track to double during Obamas presidency. Documents from Obamas own administration indicate the debt is on pace to double in raw dollars, the way the debt is commonly reported, though not as a percentage of gross domestic product. Walker aptly indicated that Obama bears part of the blame. We rate Walkers statement Mostly True. To comment on this item, please go toJSOnline.com. 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. In April 2020, a coupon purporting to offer $250 in merchandise from the Kohl's department store circulated in Facebook posts directing viewers to click on a survey question:    This was a scam. Such efforts that trick viewers by offering free goods or money are long-standing. Kohl's is also a frequent target of such scams, but this fraud can target any business, from airlines to beer makers. A good rule of thumb to follow: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. also frequent any airlines beer makers These types of viral "coupon" scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their "free" gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. Despite the latest coupon scam above, Kohl's was indeed celebrating its 57th year as a department store, as of September 2019. It opened its first store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, according to company literature. In 2016, a variation of the same type of scam circulated, offering viewers $75 off purchases. literature variation The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers WHP.  "Scam Alert: Kohl's $75 Off Coupon Is Too Good to Be True."
  24 May 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook."
  14 April 2017. FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan?      Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins:  On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated:  6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015 California officials proposed in November 2018 a new surcharge on cell phone users' monthly bills, a move that was misrepresented by some social media users as a "text tax" and targeted for expression of anti-immigrant sentiment. The California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) proposal would have instituted a surcharge on text messaging services to be included in cell phone users' monthly service bills. The commission's plan called for the revenues so raised to be used to fund public-purpose programs that provide phone service for lower-income residents as well as for deaf and disabled residents. proposal However, the proposal did not call for a "5-cent tax" per text message. Rather, the tax would have been based on a percentage of a cell phone users' monthly bills, costing around $1.40 per $20 of texting charges. The surcharge would have been similar to  existing taxes, as KGO-TV reported: costing existing For example, you pay about 3.75 percent for Universal Lifeline Telephone Service, which funds discounts for low-income customers. You pay .40 percent for the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program, which funds free specialized equipment to customers who need them. The CPUC says it needs the "text tax" because revenue that funds those programs is down, since people are making fewer calls and texting more. Regardless, some social media users accused the CPUC of seeking to financially benefit people they felt were undesirable, such as "drug addicts" and "illegals":  The commission had originally planned to vote on the issue on 10 January 2019, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stepped in on 12 December 2018 and ruled that both Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) should be regulated as "information services" akin to email and not as  telecommunication services. ruled The FCC's 3-1 decision meant that text messages would fall under the purview of the federal Telecommunications Act, which limits state jurisdiction over them. Five days later, the CPUC announced that the proposal for the surcharge had been withdrawn from their docket. announced Sze, Kristen.  "If Passed, This Is How California's 'Text Tax' Would Affect Your Cellphone Bill."
  KGO-TV.  12 December 2018. Woolfolk, John.  "FCC Decision Deals Blow to California Text-Tax Plan."
  [San Jose] Mercury News.  12 December 2018. Timm, Jane C. and Dennis Romero.  "O rly? California Considers Plan to Tax Text Messages."
  NBC News.  13 December 2018. In the wake of Brazilian soccer great Pele's Dec. 29, 2022,death, viral claims emerged that the governing body in charge of international soccer competition, FIFA, planned on keeping the forward's famous feet in itsmuseum: death its museum  These claims have no basis in fact. Many viral memes cite "TNT Sports Brazil" as their source. As the media outlet Logial.ly reported, there is no story on that outlet's website making this assertion. reported In fact, the original iteration of the post that went viral, watermarks reveal, came from a Facebook page named "Sarcasm Football Nepal," which describes itself as the "leading football humour portal based on Nepal." original iteration describes Further, there is no mention in any official FIFA press release, statement, or news story suggesting the organization has any interest or intent in keeping Pele's storied, goal-scoring feet in any capacity whatsoever. no mention For these reasons, the claim about FIFA's interest in Pele's feet is  False: FIFA Will Keep Legendary Brazilian Footballer Pel's Feet in Its Museum. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/33430510. Accessed 3 Jan. 2023. "Pele's Funeral on Monday at Club Team Santos." ESPN, 29 Dec. 2022, https://www.espn.in/football/brazil-bra/story/4840390/peles-funeral-to-be-held-monday-at-home-of-club-team-santos. A chunk of residential Northwest Austin has bridled at the prospect of a low-rise office park becoming much more. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also since modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in the three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The soonest construction was planned to start was around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact  We reached out to city officials at first, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola told us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developers request. That report, Duncan said,  indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was finished--a 478 percent uptick. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email it looks like the traffic figures indeed came from the developers consultants study. However, she noted, a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said hed heard the revision talk and for that reason, he said, his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outflanked. Im sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies  Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which looked to us like the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted  unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips means daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development, say, or trips there on city buses. An unadjusted count rolls in trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips expected once the project is finished, Bryan Golden told us by email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by a professional engineer, Bobak J. Tehrany, for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, said the redevelopment on completion in 2031 would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to some 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex  which breaks out to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. That is, he said, the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the roadway segments which were evaluated, though he also said that doesnt mean the roadways had exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis--taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenners firm told us by email--suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 of late. We didnt get a fix on why the count of current-day traffic went down. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This is taking into consideration the trips which already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is done, nearby traffic would be up 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips of late. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less  By phone, Drenner pointed out the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He said this latest analysis was based on Spires modified development planhalving the number of residential units and reducing retail uses  filed with the city April 30, 2015. Drenner said, too, the developers are suggesting $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden counseled that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031--again, provided theres no expansion on the site. Our ruling  Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment say: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developers original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.