California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world.
Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles and 2018 Democratic candidate for California governor, recently called for the state to unite with like-minded cities and states on the West Coast to oppose dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration. Californias large economy, Villaraigosa said in aDec. 8, 2016 op-edin theSacramento Bee, gives it leverage in any possible showdown. In making this call, Villaraigosa repeated a favorite claim by California politicians that the states economy ranks as the sixth largest in the world -- a claim PolitiFact Californiarated Mostly Truein July. He then took the economic comparison further -- all the way to the Pacific Northwest. California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world, Villaraigosa said. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. Thats power  power we must use to protect our people against any dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration, he added. We decided to fact-check the part of Villaraigosas claim that if the GDPs of California, Washington and Oregon were somehow combined, theyd represent the fifth largest economy on the planet, ahead of the United Kingdom. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is used to measure the health of a countrys or states economy. Its the total value of all goods and services. Our research A campaign spokeswoman for Villaraigosa pointed us to 2015 GDP figures from the International Monetary Fund. We used the same data in July to verify that California, with a GDP of nearly $2.5 trillion, had the sixth-largest economy behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. California Gov. Jerry Browns administrationreleased GDP figuresin June showing the state had jumped two spots in these unique world rankings ahead of France and Brazil and into sixth place behind the United Kingdom. In our July fact check, we noted that when adjusted for Californias very high cost of living, the states GDP drops several places. This led us to our Mostly True rating for the claim, which we define as accurate but needs clarification or additional information. To come up with a combined GDP for three West Coast states, we added Californias nearly $2.5 trillion to Oregons $217 billion and Washingtons $445 billion, using 2015 figures from theU.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Together, their GDPs add up to $3.1 trillion. This hypothetical West Coast powerhouse economy would be larger than the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP. Villaraigosas claim, however, needs the same disclaimer about high cost of living. California, Oregon and Washington are all expensive places to live. We realize Villaraigosas comparison is hypothetical -- and it looks like he got his numbers right. But to do this, he creates a fictional California economy that magically annexes the GDPs of two nearby states. Our ruling Antonio Villaraigosa recently said: California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. We rated the first portion of this claim Mostly True in a separate fact check in July. We crunched the numbers on the second part of Villaraigosas claim, about a combined and hypothetical California-Oregon-Washington economy. At $3.1 trillion, it would surpass the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP and would rank fifth in the world. Its important to note that some economists factor in cost-of-living when assessing a states or countrys GDP. Expenses are high in all three states, which means this mega-economy could be knocked down a few spots in the rankings. The former mayors statement needs this clarification. Overall, we rate Villaraigosas claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5b83a74d-fde6-48d9-9c72-c93824f92b4e
In October 2016, the above-reproduced e-mail screenshot began circulating on social media, purportedly capturing a message from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to Hillary Clinton in which Mills expressed a need to "hide" that requests for help made by the four U.S. personnel who died in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi had been denied, and in which Mills referred to those dead personnel as "idiot US soldiers [who] deserved to die": circulating From: Mills, Cheryl D. <millscd@state.gov>Sent: July 26, 2012 2:11 PMTo: HSubject: Re: Benghazi We need to hide all traces of the denied requests for help. Those idiot US soldiers deserved to die and I'm glad they were tortured. But if anyone finds out we are toast. Black Power! Cdm The header of that screenshot matched some communications found in WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," published on 16 March 2016: communications  However, a search of the term "idiot US soldiers" in the entirety of WikiLeaks' releases (including the July 2016  DNC Leaks, the October 2016 Podesta e-mails, and the March 2016 Clinton archive) returns zero results. July 2016  DNC Leaks Podesta March 2016 zero results  Moreover, the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi occurred on 11 September 2012, but the clearly fabricated e-mail that referenced it was dated 26 July 2012, over two months before that attack occurred. Benghazi The "idiot soldiers" e-mail was not the first time falsified documents were passed off as authentic leaked e-mails. A Newsweek misinterpretation of WikiLeaks' releases led to claims the leaks were fabricated, faked e-mail screenshots suggested Clinton called supporters of Bernie Sanders a "bucket of losers" and swing state voters "white trash," and legitimate e-mails mocking a conspiracy theory about Clinton being involved in a plane crash were reframed as a "shocking leak." Newsweek bucket of losers white trash plane crash On Feb. 16, 2024, the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken and formidable opponent, Alexei Navalny, was announced by the Russian prison service.The former lawyer was 47, and he was serving a 19-year prison sentence on charges of extremism in an isolated penal colony above the Arctic Circle. Vladimir Putin's The notice, released by the prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region andtranslated from Russian by Reuters, read as follows: The notice translated from Russian by Reuters On Feb. 16, 2024, in penal colony number 3, convict Alexei Navalny felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness. The medical staff of the institution arrived immediately, and an ambulance team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, which did not yield positive results. Doctors of the ambulance stated the death of the convict. The causes of death are being established. The notice indicated it was last updated at 2:19 p.m. Feb. 16. According to a Feb. 17 tweet by Navalny's spokesperson,Kira Yarmysh, he was "murdered" and the official time of his death was 2:17 p.m. Feb. 16, "according to the official message to Alexey's mother." Alexey Navalny was murdered. His death occurred on February 16 at 2:17 p.m. local time, according to the official message to Alexey's mother. An employee of the colony said that the body of Navalny is now in Salekhard. It was picked up by investigators from the IC. Now they are    (@Kira_Yarmysh) February 17, 2024 February 17, 2024  Ivan Zhdanov,the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, tweeted on Feb. 17 that when Navalny's lawyer and mother arrived at the colony, they were told that the cause of Navalny's death was "sudden death syndrome." tweeted on Feb. 17 On Feb. 19, Navalny's anti-corruption foundation posted an updatein which they reaffirm that his official time of death was 2:17, pictured below: an update  (Image via acf.international) The Kremlin has not been transparent in releasing more specific details the exact cause of Navalny's death; therefore, information surrounding the exact cause and time of Navalny's death cannot be absolutely confirmed without independent investigation. Because of this, we rate this claim as "Unproven." If more information surrounding the details of his death is confirmed, this story will be updated accordingly. Many world leaders  including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and U.S. President Joe Biden  publicly pointed to Putin as being behind Navalny's death. Navalny's wife, Yulia Navalnaya, spoke at the Munich Security Conference within hours of the announcement of her husband's death. In her speech, she stated that she did not know whether to believe the report of his death because"we cannot trust Putin and the Putin government. They always lie." U.S. President Joe Biden  Just one day beforethe announcement of his death, on Feb. 15, Navalny was seen in a video-link court hearing in which he joked with the judge about sending him money because he was running out of funds due to the judge's decisions. Just one day before  Alexei Navalny Appears Healthy in Video-Link Court Hearing on Day before His Death.www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGlH9WS5yI. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. 'Alexey Navalny Timeline: From Poisoning to Prison to Death'.Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/16/hold-alexei-navalny-timeline-from-poisoning-to-prison. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. Bayer, Lili. 'Yulia Navalnaya Takes Stage at Munich Meeting after News of Husband's Death'.The Guardian, 16 Feb. 2024.The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/yulia-navalnaya-munich-security-conference-navalny-putin. Faulconbridge, Guy, et al. 'Putin Foe Alexei Navalny Dies in Jail, West Holds Russia Responsible'.Reuters, 16 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jailed-russian-opposition-leader-navalny-dead-prison-service-2024-02-16/. Guldbk, Karoline. 'Bekrefter ddsfall'.dagbladet.no, 17 Feb. 2024, https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/bekrefter-dodsfall/80992002. Henderson, Cameron, et al. 'Putin Is Responsible for Navalny's Death, Says Biden - Follow Latest'.The Telegraph, 16 Feb. 2024.www.telegraph.co.uk, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/16/russia-ukraine-zelensky-putin-war-latest-news5/. 'Https://Twitter.Com/Gerashchenko_en/Status/1758479753898504421?T=137'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1758479753898504421?t=137. Accessed 16 Feb. 2024. 'Https://Twitter.Com/ioannZH/Status/1758831082500165791'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/ioannZH/status/1758831082500165791. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. 'Https://Twitter.Com/Kira_Yarmysh/Status/1758801430125695199'.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Kira_Yarmysh/status/1758801430125695199. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. 'Kremlin Foe Alexei Navalny's Team Confirms His Death and Says His Mother Is Searching for His Body'.AP News, 17 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/russia-alexei-navalny-death-opposition-leader-37da0915157576372d6493be7ad04b5c. 'Navalny's Death: The Full Russian Prison Service Statement'.Reuters, 16 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-prison-service-statement-about-navalnys-death-2024-02-16/. 'Western Officials and Kremlin Critics Blame Putin and His Government for Navalny's Death in Prison'.AP News, 16 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/russia-navalny-death-global-reactions-putin-19e7fd6318763627f6917a92678cd190. 'World Leaders Blame Putin's Government in Russia for Death of Alexei Navalny'.PBS NewsHour, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/world-leaders-blame-putins-government-in-russia-for-death-of-alexei-navalny.    -   . 16 Feb. 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20240216120742/https://89.fsin.gov.ru/news/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=729444. Feb. 20, 2024: This article was updated to include new information released by Navalny's team in the days following the announcement of his death. As news broke in June 2018 that children were being separated from their families by immigration agents as they crossed into the United States from Mexico, an intense round of whataboutism ensued as the usual bots, paid trolls, unpaid trolls, and useful idiots took the opportunity to claim that President Barack Obama did the same thing during his time in office (he didn't). One piece of "evidence" supporting this argument was a photograph of a group of protesters holding a sign reading "Obama Don't Separate Me From My Mommy."  whataboutism he didn't This image was frequently shared along with statements claiming that it destroyed "the liberal narrative," and that Obama, too, had kept children in cages after separating them from their mothers: statements   This is indeed a genuine photograph that was taken during the Obama era in 2014. However, there major differences between the immigration policy at the center of the pictured protest and the child detention centers that were at the center of public outrage in June 2018. In a nutshell: Families were separated under President Barack Obama as the result of deportation of undocumented people from the United States. Families were separated under President Donald Trump as parents and children were put into different detention facilities after they crossed the border to ask for asylum in the United States. Obama was referred to by some border activists as the "Deporter-in-Chief" during his time in office, as he deported more people from the United States (thanks in part, but not completely, to a change in definition) than any other president in modern history. Many of these deportations resulted in families being separated, because children born in the United States were allowed to stay in the country but their parents were forced to leave.  deported definition A June 2014 article published by the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Obama, saying that he was not living up to the promises he made on immigration during the 2008 campaign, and that deportation was still separating children from their parents under his watch: criticized During the 2008 campaign, Senator Barack Obama seemed to understand their pain and promised to fix our broken immigration system. He promised to enact comprehensive immigration reform and create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of hardworking people who labor for little money at often thankless jobs to make their children's lives  and for that matter our lives a little bit easier. He pledged to no longer separate children from their parents. Today 4 million children call an undocumented immigrant mom or dad. Children who hug their parents extra tight before they leave for work for fear they'll never see them again. The viral photograph was taken by Associated Press photographer Jose Luis Magana on 2 August 2014 as demonstrators asked Obama to modify his deportation policies. Associated Press Obama attempted to mitigate the issue a few months later when he announced the "Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan. One of the central points of the plan was to focus on felons rather than families; another was to provide undocumented immigrants already living in the United States a chance to avoid deportation by passing a background check and paying taxes.  Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan This photograph shows a group of protesters urging President Barack Obama to modify his policies in order to ease deportations that result in family separations. The sign does not refer to children that were taken away from their parents and placed in detention centers. Timm, Jane.  "Fact check: Did Obama Administration Separate Families?."
  NBC News.  19 June 2018. Bichir, Demian.  "Exiled: The Obama Administration's Horrifying Deportation Record."
  ACLU.  10 June 2014. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 The Georgia night sky could -- loudly -- come to life if a piece of legislation becomes state law. Senate Resolution 378 would allow revenue from the sale of consumer fireworks to be used to help fund trauma care and firefighter services in Georgia. Currently, nothing with more pop than a sparkler can be sold in this state. The expansion would allow the sale of more high-powered fireworks, such as rockets, firecrackers and Roman candles. The resolution, if approved, would require a statewide voter referendum in November 2014. One prominent sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jeff Mullis, said theres a practical reason for such a law. We lose millions of dollars of revenue because people go out of state to buy fireworks, said Mullis, a Republican from Chickamauga, a 10-minute trip from the Tennessee border. Mullis claimed in a press release that the sales tax on these purchases will raise and [sic] estimated $5 million each year for vital emergency services. Lawmakers propose a 6 percent tax on fireworks sales with the proceeds being evenly split for trauma care and a firefighter safety council. An additional 1 percent tax could be collected by cities and counties. PolitiFact Georgia received a reader request to figure out if Mullis is correct in his assertion that Georgia loses millions of dollars because people travel to Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee to get their fireworks. We try to stay away from fact-checking revenue projections. Mullis, a former firefighter, said via email that his primary concern is Georgia is failing to capitalize on a form of commerce that could add millions of dollars to our state's bottom line, as well as jobs which would be created as a result of new industry. Marietta resident Bill Tugwell owns the large Alabama fireworks store on U.S. 431 between Phenix City and Eufaula that many metro Atlantans pass on their way to vacation along the Florida Panhandle beaches. The parking lot is often filled with cars bearing Georgia license plates. I dont think its millions plural, Tugwell said regarding how much money Georgia loses to other states. I think its closer to a million. Some states have interesting purposes for their fireworks laws. Florida allows people to buy an estimated 2,000 forms of fireworks that are listed under the category of sparklers. For anything that explodes or lifts off the ground, you need a permit. Some of the permitted uses for more powerful forms of fireworks include scaring birds away from crops. There shouldnt be a critter left in Florida, quipped Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, a Maryland-based trade group. Revenue officials in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee said they did not have any research showing how much money Georgians spend on fireworks there. Economics academics at colleges and universities in those states said they havent seen or conducted such research. A Senate spokeswoman sent us a report by the American Pyrotechnics Association that says consumers nationwide spent $649 million on fireworks in 2011, up from $284 million in 1998. The figures were not broken down by states. Jeff Humphreys, director of the University of Georgias Selig Center for Economic Growth, suggested we could come up with an estimate by calculating a per capita breakdown of how much money Georgians would spend on fireworks if the menu of products was expanded. Since slightly more than 3 percent of the nations population lives in Georgia (9.9 million residents), that would equate to about $20 million being spent by Georgians in 2011. Humphreys advised us that there would be a multiplier effect on top of the direct fiscal impact due to reduced shopping outside Georgia if fireworks were available for purchase inside the state, but he said it would not be large. A 6 percent tax or fee could be worth at least $3 million annually. In 2006, Indiana lawmakers imposed a 5 percent safety fee on retail fireworks sales. Indiana collects about $2.5 million a year from the fee, state data shows. Indiana has about 6.5 million residents. Michigan collected $755,262 from a 6 percent fireworks safety fee during the first eight months of its new law to allow more powerful fireworks to be sold, the Detroit News reported. The newspaper reported the revenue collected was far below projections. Michigans new fireworks safety fee and guidelines took effect in January 2012. Michigan has 9.8 million residents, nearly the same amount as Georgia. Bill Weimer, a top official of a company in Ohio that sells many of the fireworks not currently sold in Georgia, believes Mullis claim is accurate. Weimer looked at the amount of fireworks sold in Indiana and believes the same volume of fireworks will be sold in Georgia or more. You can do the math, said Weimer, vice president of Phantom Fireworks, which sells fireworks to several national retail chains. Phantom Fireworks has been working with Mullis and other lawmakers trying to pass SR 378. So where does this leave us? Mullis claimed Georgias economy loses millions of dollars in revenue because residents travel outside the state to purchase their fireworks. Its probable, but there is no specific research to support his argument. We do know some Georgians go outside the state to buy fireworks, and it does seem like people spend millions of dollars on fireworks in other states. It would be useful if there were more hard numbers out there to back up Mullis claim. But based on the specific numbers we have from other states and our own estimates, he seems to be in the ballpark. We rate his claim Mostly True. In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. With the rise of the fiscally conservative tea party and the recent release of a draft report by the presidentially appointed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the nation's fiscal challenges have rocketed up the list of urgent agenda items in Washington. We'll take a look at two comments on federal spending made on the Nov. 14, 2010, Sunday talk shows -- one by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and the other by Sen.-elect Rand Paul, R-Ky. We'll address Conrad's here.In an interview on ABC'sThis Week With Christiane Amanpour, Conrad -- who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the presidentially appointed panel -- said, If you look at our spending, it's the highest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, so we're going to have to work both sides of the equation.Let's take a look at Conrad's numbers.As we did with Paul's item, we turned to a historicaltablefrom the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.In 2009, the last full year available, federal spending accounted for 24.7 percent of GDP. That's higher than it's been in any year since 1949 -- 60 years prior. You have to go back to 1946 to find a higher percentage -- 24.8 -- and that was a year in which the nation was winding down high rates of spending for World War II. (From 1943 to 1945, the height of the war, federal spending ranged from 41 percent to 43 percent of GDP. )Clearly, recessions have an impact on how high this percentage gets. The only other years since 1946 in which federal spending exceeded 23 percent of GDP came in 1982 and 1983, with 23.1 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively. That was during and immediately after the 1981-82 recession -- the last one that rivaled today's in severity. Economic downturns tend to affect this statistic because theyslowGDP growth and increase the demand for government services. Even without special stimulus measures, spending goes up for mandatory items such as food stamps.Either way, Conrad is correct on spending. What about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP?In 2009, tax receipts accounted for 14.8 percent of GDP. According to the table, tax receipts as a share of GDP were always higher all the way back through 1950, when they accounted for 14.4 percent of GDP. That would be 59 years -- not quite 60, but very, very close.The recession factors into the tax revenue statistic as well. Both the 2008 stimulus package under President George W. Bush and the 2009 stimulus under President Barack Obama included tax breaks as a major component.Because the statistics show a number so close to 60 years -- and because Conrad was speaking during a television interview rather than a prepared speech or written statement -- we'll give him some leeway and rate the statement True. In June 2017, fake news web site React365 posted a captioned photo of a shark fin peeking out of a body of water with the headline "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake": fake posted   Slight though it was, the page got a lot of play on social media  partly, we hope, in recognition of its humorous intent. A nine-foot-long bull shark was not, in fact, found in Kentucky Lake, a man-made reservoir along the western borders of Kentucky and Tennessee. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Services made that clear in a sternly worded Facebook post dated 27 June 2017: React365 is a web site that provides users with tools to create their own fake news stories, and share them via Facebook and Twitter: React365  A grammatically challenged disclaimer on the site claims its purpose is entertainment:   React365 users sometimes copy and repost the same material with minor changes to localize or personalize a joke in hopes of garnering shares on social media. Examples include: Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia, Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River, and Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River. For that matter, ersatz shark sightings are a perennial favorite on fake news web sites and social media generally. For example, we've previously debunked: Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River, Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes, and Photo of a Baby Great White Shark. Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes Photo of a Baby Great White Shark Sticklers for detail will have noticed that the image shared with the React365 post does not depict the fin of a freshwater bull shark, but that of a great white shark instead. The image, normally credited to UC Davis, has been used all over the Internet for the past seven years or more, including in actual news stories. actual ABC7 News. "More than a Ton of Illegal Shark Fins Seized in San Francisco."
 14 February 2014. React365. "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake."
 26 June 2017. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007.--> Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. There are some things you just don't do if you want to be considered a conservative politician. Raising taxes is at the top of the list.Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle has proudly told audiences that Georgia leaders, amid one of the worst economic periods in American history, passed a budget this spring without raising taxes. Cagle, a Republican running for re-election, bragged about this at a Sept. 4 GOP rally in Carroll County, giving some of the credit to Gov. Sonny Perdue. [Perdue] was able to help us balance the budget without raising taxes on the residents of Georgia, Cagle said, according to the Times-Georgian newspaper in Carrollton.Some AJC PolitiFact Georgia readers have questioned the claim in recent weeks and asked us to check it out. Carol Porter, Cagle's Democratic opponent in the Nov. 2 election, cut a television commercial this week calling out her opponent.Casey Cagle raised our taxes during a recession, a voice says over ominous music.There are three main points of debate about Cagle's statement.The first is centered on House Bill 1055. It is 84 pages of legalese that raises fees on many items. Most are for services not used by the average Georgian, such as the licensing fee for a fertilizer distributor. Some, however, included the annual fee to register a business in Georgia, the cost for a personalized license plate and fees to run a child care business. Combined, the fee increases are estimated to collect an additional $90 million over a year.Some say a fee increase is simply a politician using a different word for a tax increase. Others disagree. It's a longtime argument. Webster's defines a tax as a charge, usually of money, imposed by an authority on persons or property for public purposes. Webster's says a fee is a sum paid or charged for a service. University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock considers a fee as the cost for a service people can choose to use or not. He contends a tax is for a service that serves a general purpose, such as public schools or roads.Kelly McCutchen, president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, defines a fee as a charge that covers the cost of providing a service. He says a tax is when the government collects revenue that is greater than the cost of providing the service. Alan Essig, executive director of the liberal-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, also believes it is not accurate to say not providing the credit is a tax increase.What was taken out of the [state] budget was an appropriation, said Essig, a former state budget analyst. It was a local tax that you give a credit to.Clint Mueller, the legislative director for the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, agreed.They didn't force the [property tax] rate to go up, he said of the Legislature. It was the elimination of the credit. ... Technically, it's not a tax increase.Still, the bottom line is that many Georgia homeowners will pay more for their property taxes. We found this the most persuasive argument.So where does that leave us? It's clear that there was no direct, across-the-board tax increase on Georgians. Some of the discussion turns into a semantic debate concerning what's a fee and what's a tax -- and whether there's truly a difference. We won't be able to settle that here. On the tax relief grant, while its demise wasn't technically a tax increase, the effect is that Georgia property owners are paying more. In all, we found Cagle's statement accurate but needs clarification on the tax relief grant. By the definition of our Truth-o-Meter, that rates as Mostly True.