Is the Democratic Party endorsed by AARP?
In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.
Claim:  Photograph shows Detroit slums with downtown skyscrapers in the background. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] Several website list this photograph as Detroit. The skyline looks likely, but the slum in front looks more like a composite of the edge of a Brazilian city with the modern Detroit skyline. Is this photo legitimate? Ive only been to Detroit once, and while I wanted to kill myself after driving through, I dont remember it being this bad.    Origins:  Just as the recent financial woes of the "Big Three" U.S. automobile manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) have been held up as exemplars of the decline of American industry, so has their home base  Detroit, Michigan  been offered as symbolic of the decay of the "rust belt" manufacturing-industrial cities of the northeastern United States. Detroit was once the fourth-largest city in the U.S., a booming industrial metropolis that in 1950 boasted a population of 1.85 million.  By 2009 it was home to less than half as many people (770,000), the median household income of its remaining residents was $28,370 (about half the national average), and the median home price was a minuscule $7,100.  The news magazine The Week described Detroit's modern status thusly in October 2009: Outside the city's downtown core of office buildings, Detroit looks like a post-apocalyptic nightmare. The collapse of the auto industry, political dysfunction, and epidemics of crime, drugs, and arson have battered Detroit like a slow-motion hurricane,  leveling entire neighborhoods and causing a major chunk of the population to flee. Nearly 30 percent of the city, an area almost the size of San Francisco, has been abandoned to "urban prairie"  vast depopulated stretches of high grass and shattered asphalt. An Asian plant species sometimes called "ghetto palm" sprouts from the remains of abandoned buildings, where wild pheasants are occasionally sighted. The torched skeletons of homes are commonplace. In the 1980s and '90s, demolition permits outnumbered building permits by more than 10-1. Nearly 30 percent of the city's remaining housing stock  more than 100,000 units  lies vacant. Although the above-displayed photograph of a shantytown juxtaposed against the background of a gleaming, skyscraper-filled downtown core might superficially match a description of modern Detroit, elements of the picture don't match that location.  (It's unlikely, for example, that either residents of the thin wood and tin-sheet shacks or palm trees could survive the harshly low wintertime temperatures common to that area.) This type of picture is one that, unfortunately, could have been snapped in any number of places around the world.  Specifically, it's a photograph of Makati, which is part of the greater metropolitan area of the Philippine capital city of Manila and is an international financial and commercial hub.  It's not uncommon for news stories to feature photographs of Makati as a way of illustrating growing economic disparities found within some rapidly developing countries and regions:   Shanty houses are cramped in the foreground while construction of new high rise buildings rise in the background at Manila's financial district of Makati. Asia is broadly on track to reduce extreme poverty by half by 2015, reflecting the positive impact of its dynamic economy in the lives of its nearly four billion people, according to a joint report released by the Asian Development Bank and the UN Development Programme in Manila. Another photograph of Makati taken from a similar vantage point can be seen in a 2006 BusinessWeek article about squatter cities. photograph article Last updated:  8 September 2013    The Week.  "Detroit: A City on the Brink." On 29 February 2016, an image purportedly showing a newly hatched baby dragon was shared on Facebook:    News Flash.....  Dragons to be reintroduced to Wales after an absence of more than a 1000 years , local conservation groups say they are pleased by the move that will put a large preditor back in the food chain ....  There have been concern shown by the farming community due to the risk of predation to livestock but the Welsh assembly say they are willing to pay compesation to farmers who can prove loss, the other danger with the dragons eating habits of taking virgins is not thought to be a problem as they went extinct in Wales may years ago anyway...... shared   The above-displayed photo does not, of course, show a real baby dragon. This image was created for a 2008Photoshop contest on the web siteWorth 1000.Worth1000.com,which has since moved toDesignCrowd.com,asked digital artists to create their ownversion of the mythical creature:Dragons. Small and cuddly or big and nasty, Chinese or European, furry or scaly, slick or rough, feathered wings or bat wings, fire breathing or smoke snorting, reptile head or lion head, intelligent or instinctual, ancient or modern, living or robotic. Never has there been a fantasy creature so revered and yet so reviled. contest DesignCrowd.com The rules are thus: create a dragon of your own making. No illustrations, no modifying some else's dragon. You may not use sources from fantasy art. You may use photos of dinosaur models, but (as always) the standard copyright rules apply.   In addition to the image's source (a site dedicated to digital artcontests) and the fact that dragons don't exist, the creator of the digital baby dragon provided the source images used:  This is not the first time that rumors thatdragons actually arereal (complete with "photo proof")haveswirled around the internet. In March 2015, images of a dragon sculpture were shared as authentic, and in June 2015, a digital artist added wings to a picture of a Satanic Leaf-Tailed Geckoand thenpassed it off as a photo of a real dragon. images picture One of Donald Trumps signature issues in his 2016 presidential bid has been stopping the outflow of American jobs to other countries. During avisitto Delaware, Ohio, heciteda recent example of a major American company moving some of its work out of the United States. Companies like Carrier are firing their workers and moving to Mexico, Trump said. Ford is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. When I'm president, if a company wants to fire their workers and leave for Mexico or other countries, then we will charge them a 35 percent tax when they want to ship their products back into the United States. Is it really true that Ford is moving all of their small car production to Mexico? Well take a closer look. On Sept. 14, 2016, Ford CEO Mark Fields announced at an event with Wall Street analysts that we will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States over the next two to three years, according toReuters. Ford had already announced that it would be investing $1.6 billion in Mexico for small-car production starting in 2018. During contract talks in 2015, Ford confirmed that it would move Focus and C-Max production out of its Wayne, Mich., plant in 2018. The United Auto Workers Union said at the time that Ford planned to build the next Focus in Mexico, Reuters reported. The Focus and the C-Max are considered small cars. The company cited declining interest among U.S. consumers for smaller cars and growing sales for bigger vehicles in an era of low gasoline prices. It also cited Mexican labor costs that are about 40 percent lower than than in the United States. That's what it takes to compete in that (small car) segment, Fields toldCNN. So Trump is right that the company is moving all small-car production in North America to Mexico. However, he overlooked a salient point -- that both the company and the United Auto Workers do not expect any jobs to be lost at the Wayne plant. Instead of building small cars, the Wayne facility will transition into producing SUVs and pickup trucks that are more popular in the United States. Our U.S. workforce at that plant will be making those new vehicles, said Ford spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth Baker. In the past five years, Ford has invested $12 billion in U.S. plants and created nearly 28,000 U.S. jobs, Baker said. In all, the company has 85,000 U.S. employees. In a September interview with Fox News, Trump mischaracterized the changes at Ford, saying the company planned to fire all their employees in the United States and  move to Mexico. The company aggressively countered that allegation. In an interview withCNN, Fields was asked whether the company would cut any U.S. jobs as part of the relocation of work to Mexico. He said, Absolutely not. Zero. Not one job will be lost. Most of our investment is here in the U.S. And that's the way it will continue to be. In his speech in Ohio, however, Trump stuck closer to the facts. Our ruling Trump said that Ford is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. Thats correct as far as it goes, but framing it that way ignores an important qualifier -- that no U.S. jobs will be lost in the transition. The company says that workers at the Ford plant in question will instead make SUVs and pickups. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/0f5ed3db-289b-4d1c-a1d6-4c03ac61e82e Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, campaigning for re-election,tweeteda parody of President Barack Obama promoting his signature health-care law. Around midday Dec. 12, 2013, the official White House Twitter accountposteda photo of Obama holding a sign urging Americans to get health coverage because nobody should go broke just because they get sick. Social media denizensstarted creatingversions that rewrote the signs text; Dewhursts had Obama saying, I want more of Texans private data. Some perspective: Texas in 2012 had approximately 19.5 million insured residents and 5.2 million legal residents without insurance according to a March 18, 2013,reportby the state Health and Human Services Commission. Does the Obamacare law demand private data on them that wasn't known to the government before? PolitiFact reporters have checked out several claims about how the Affordable Care Acts online marketplaces will handle personal information. Many of the concerns addressed are about how government agencies will share information they already collect -- andhow securethat information will be. As part of a May 2013fact-check, PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., reported that afederal data hubresulting from the 2010 law would pull information from government agencies, but not expand federal data collection. For example, the Social Security Administration is asked to verify a person's Social Security number, and the IRS confirms financial data to see if a person is eligible for a subsidy. PolitiFact in D.C. gave aFalse ratingSept. 19, 2013, to a claim by former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey that Obamacare will question your sex life, finding that nothing in the health care law required such questions. So what information does the government collect under the Obamacare law? If you apply to shop in the federal online insurance marketplace or the marketplace for your state, youll supply information on yourself and perhaps family members, some of which the government already has. Healthcare.gov offers achecklistfor people preparing to fill out applications, whetheronlineorprinted: Social Security number, employer, income, current insurance policy numbers and information about your employers insurance plans (if any). Such answers will help determine whether youre eligible to buy insurance through the marketplaces and if you can get free- or reduced-cost coverage via tax credits, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. The standardizedfamily applicationasks for information on you and everyone who lives with you, including whether you are pregnant and how many babies youre expecting, whether you have a health condition that limits daily activities, whether you live in a nursing home and whether you were in foster care after age 18. Other questions concern employment, military service, sources of income, tax deductions taken and whether you are American Indian or Alaska Native. A Sept. 18, 2013,fact sheetfrom the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said, Personal health information (PHI) will be requested only when it is needed to complete the application and make an eligibility determination for health coverage options. Health privacy expert Deven McGraw told us by email that the applications do collect some information the government did not already have, but said its the same type of information gathered when people apply for public coverage such as Medicaid. They are questions that are specifically designed to match eligibility criteria. So none of it is extraneous, said McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for Internet freedom. And, she said, the data cant be used for any purposes other than the marketplaces functions. More information about you could come, the fact sheet says, from common federal data sources including the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Wait -- Homeland Security? According to the National Immigration Law Centerswebsite, applicants who are not U.S. citizens will have their status verified through a Homeland/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servicedatabase. Agencies already use the web service, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), to determine immigrants eligibility forbenefitsincluding Medicaid, housing loans and unemployment. Via email, Social Security spokeswoman Kia Anderson told us her agency can, when CMS needs the information to determine eligibility, provide applicants ID numbers, citizenship data, death or disability indicators and Social Security income and coverage earned. So the application process puts together some information the government already had with some it didnt have. People who arent applying to shop inthe marketplaces but are subject to the Obamacare laws mandate will also be sharing some new information with Uncle Sam. The mandate to have or get insurance applies, according to the immigration law center, to all U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants. Via email, IRS spokeswoman Lea Crusberg said 2014 tax returns will ask whether you have health coverage that meets the new standards or an exemption, whether you got coverage through an Obamacare marketplace and whether you got a tax credit to help defray the cost. The laws new tax payments and credits will also be on returns, of course. In 2015, Crusberg said, the IRS will start collecting coverage information from insurance providers. Employers who insure their own workers in-house will report which employees are enrolled and give enough information so the IRS can tell if those workers are due a tax credit. Self-insuring employers will also put the cost of the plan theyre providing on W-2 forms so workers can see it. Is the new data private information? Per the CMS fact sheet, Obamacare applicants could be asked to cough up some personal health information. But the fact sheet also says the marketplaces systems will not store this information -- which casts some doubt on whether the government is really collecting it, but serves as an indication that its considered sensitive. How about when the IRS asks where your insurance comes from, whether you got a tax credit for it and whether it meets the Obamacare laws standards? Generally, the IRS regards what you put on your tax return as private. For example, tax preparers who disclose such information without your consentcan face criminal charges. Final IRS regulations governing who can disclose what tax return information to HHS under the Obamacare lawwere issuedAug. 13, 2013. AnFAQposted by the IRS that day said that officers and employees of the IRS will disclose to HHS, the Marketplace, and state agencies only, upon written request and subject to strict privacy and security rules, certain return information ... for the purpose of determining eligibility for certain health care affordability programs. Our ruling Dewhurst said Obama wants more of Texans private data. The subset of Texans shopping for coverage through the online marketplace are providing additional private data for a reason: to ensure theyre qualified. Dewhurst's statement overlooks these aspects. Regardless, many more Texans will be asked to give the IRS information about their health coverage that was previously not requested. We rate Dewhursts statement as 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. The perils of sharing photographs online manifested in a February 2018 hoax in which social media users shared an unidentified man's image along with the claim that he's a murderous taxi driver. The earliest iteration of the post, on 4 February 2018, emanated from a Facebook user in Nigeria, who posted:    The post was accompanied by a photograph of the alleged assailant:   Besides lacking much in the way of context, the photo can be found on at least two online dating sites, with divergent information: The man is identified as a resident of Casablanca on Wamba; but on JeContacte he's described as hailing from Cameroon. Wamba; JeContacte However, the web site The Zambian Observer claimed that he was Congolese in a post accusing him of committing several murders: post Zambia shares a border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in December 2017 a reported thousands of Congolese refugees made their way into Zambia to escape from violence in their own country. The article appears to be using the man as an anti-immigrant scapegoat and a way to attack a specific politician. reported Other iterations of the post placed the man in Freeport, Jamaica; Washington D.C.; Toledo, Ohio; and in New York City, where some social media users posted the picture and the original caption, adding the phrase "my friend from the DA'S office in Brooklyn just sent me this. Share it for your safety":   A spokesperson for the actual Brooklyn District Attorney's office told us that they "know nothing" about the person in the picture or the allegations. But as often happens around social media, users shared the claim while admitting that they had no idea whether they were helping the spread of misinformation:       But there has yet to be actual corroboration of any of the claims surrounding the unnamed man; police officials in both New York City and Washington D.C. told us that they had never heard of the post or any allegations about a "murder cab." The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles said that "2465RB" did not match any license plate attached to a taxi or any other sort of vehicle. And a spokesperson for the Toledo Police Department told us, "We have looked into this and it is not credible." We also contacted police in Zambia seeking comment, but had not heard back as of time of publication. The fact that the claim spans several continents and countries suggest that this is a false rumor, as does the Zambian Observer's claim that the man was doing "ritual killings." If this man were murdering people in Brooklyn (or Toledo, or Washington D.C., or Freeport et al), and if law enforcement had his photograph, it would have been reported in major U.S. newspapers, police would know about it, and official government sources would have published warnings.  Schlein, Lisa. "Thousands of Congolese Fleeing into Zambia to Escape Violence in DRC."
Voice of America. 3 December 2017. Added reponse from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.  Added response from the Toledo Police Department. In herBack To Workcampaign ad, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, one of four Democrats running for governor, stated that her former venture capital firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was partner. She made the same claim while campaigning for treasurer in the 2010 election. (Raimondo left the firm the day she took office; her investments there are held in a blind trust. The company has been relocated to Boston.) The ad shows Raimondo atNabsys, a biomedical company in Providence. Before I was State Treasurer, my Rhode Island business helped create over 1,000 jobs, including here at Nabsys, a biomedical company, Raimondo said. As governor, Ill use this as a model for how we create manufacturing jobs. Ill bring colleges and industry together to develop new products in marine science, green technology, and medical devices, and to train our workers to fill those jobs  We need to get Rhode Islanders back to work. This week, Raimondo reiterated that claimin a new TV adabout how she helped bring back Narragansett Beer, originally brewed in Rhode Island until the brewery closed for good in 1983. (I helped create over a thousand jobs, from high tech to making beer ) Before we get started,lets be clear about one thing. Venture capital firms such as Point Judith are not in the business of creating jobs. Their mission is to make money for their investors -- and themselves. They do so by raising money from entities such as private investors and public pension funds, and then investing it in startup companies, hoping for a big return if those companies take off. If the companies succeed and grow, they add jobs. But thats not the goal of the venture capitalists. To support her claim, Raimondo sent us a list of 21 companies that Point Judith Capital invested in and how many jobs those investments -- and the companys efforts -- helped create during the time she was a partner. They add up to 1,063. The list was produced by Point Judith Capital in late 2010, in preparation for her run for treasurer. We also interviewed Raimondo. She described Point Judith Capitals role as an early-stage investor. Typically, you sit on the board of the company, provide a lot of hand-holding and strategic advice, you help recruit people, and get the bank loan. Its hands-on. Thats why we say helped create those jobs. We had to have invested money in the company, which means we had an ownership stake in the company  In every case we either had a board seat and additionally were just very involved in building the business, writing the business plan, helping to get customers. Raimondo said, In these cases, we invested millions of dollars. Initially she said that was more than two million in each of those companies. On Wednesday, Raimondo campaign manager Eric Hyers said Raimondo had misspoke. The investments were all at least six figures; they ranged from roughly $400,000 to $2 million or more. Raimondo noted that many of the companies have expanded and added jobs since then. Next, we attempted to callall 21 companies. Many were from out of state. Some had been bought out, and we were unable to reach the principals who worked there when Point Judith Capital was involved. At least one appears to have since closed. Of the representatives of seven companies we reached, all essentially confirmed Raimondos claims, representing roughly 480 jobs. In one case, the job number appeared to fall slightly short; in another, a CEO gave Raimondo credit for more than the number of jobs she cited. We spoke with Mark Hellendrung, president ofNarragansett Brewing Co. The company is based in Providence. Hellendrung said the beer is now brewed in Rochester, N.Y., Pawcatuck, Conn., Westport, Mass. Test batches have been brewed locally in Rhode Island. Raimondo claimed Point Judith helped create 10 jobs there, and invested more than $1 million. Hellendrung confirmed that Point Judith Capital helped launch the company (which put the famous Narragansett lager beer back on the shelves) with slightly less than $2 million venture capital nine years ago, and active involvement. Weve got over 10 full-time people, and routinely weve got over 20 part-time people that work promotions and events  Its been a labor of love and a ton of fun and Gina was very helpful in that process, Hellendrung said. We spoke with Michael ONeil Jr., founder and CEO ofGetWellNetwork, a health care technology company headquartered in Maryland. Raimondo claimed Point Judith Capital helped create 121 jobs there. Shes totally correct, ONeil said. Gina and I met just as the company was getting started. Her leadership helped us get off the ground and helped get hundreds of jobs. Those included software engineers and project managers; others were on the services side, ONeil said. Donna Dooley,chief financial officer at MedOptions, said that the 185 jobs that Raimondo credits Point Judith Capital with helping to create sounds accurate. Dooley joined MedOptions in 2011, the year after Raimondo left Point Judith Capital, and by then it was about 250 employees, she said. MedOptions provides behavioral health services in southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic. I know that Point Judith Capital and another investment company put money in  I do think its fair to say that there was a fair amount of job creation at that time, Dooley said. Steven J. Tallarida, cofounder of the former Spirus Medical, said Raimondo probably sold herself short by listing nine as the number of jobs Point Judith Capital helped create at that medical device company. It was probably around 20, Tallarida said in a phone interview. Those included research and development, manufacturing and sales jobs. Point Judith Capital invested a couple of million. Raimondo sat on the board, and she would give governance on how to do things, Tallarida said. (The Massachusetts-based company was sold in 2011 to the Tokyo-based Olympus Corp.) Genevieve Thiers,who cofoundedSittercity, wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital put in $2.5 million and led our Series A round. Due to them and the other $2.5 million  we were able to grow from 20 employees to about 80. (Raimondo credited her former company with helping to create 80 jobs at Sittercity, a nationwide babysitter-matching website). Thiers added, That money did not start the company but it was needed for a pivotal stage in growth. Thiers has since left the company but remains on the board. Dr. Barrett Bready,Nabsyscofounder and CEO, said in an email that Point Judith Capital was the first venture capital firm to invest in the company, and the firm has continued to invest in subsequent financing rounds. Raimondo formerly held a board seat. Nabsys currently has 40 employees: the number Raimondo credits her former company with helping to create. Bob Lentz, founder of the former PermissionTV, in Waltham, Mass., wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital was actively involved. Raimondo said her firm helped create 40 jobs there. Lentz wrote, Its been a few years but the numbers sound right. (PermissionTV has been relaunched as VisibleGains). Our ruling: Gina Raimondo said her former firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was a partner there. She produced a list of 21 companies and a precise number of jobs. We reached representatives of seven companies -- most of them cofounders and/or CEOs. They confirmed that Point Judith capital invested several million dollars - give or take - in each case; held board positions and as such, helped create jobs. The jobs numbers added to roughly 480 at those companies. While we were unable to reach all the companies Raimondo listed, the responses from the companies we did reach supported her qualified claim that Point Judith helped create 1,000 jobs. We rate Raimondos claim True. (If you have a claim you'd like us to check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives: reported Antonin Scalia For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country! According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died this email was sent, using the term "wetworks"  exclusively used in Military meaning "assassination".   The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first)  sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM: e-mail Steve Elmendorf From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.com>Subject: Thanks Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard. From:elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.comTo: john.podesta@gmail.comDate: 2016-02-09 20:56Subject: RE: Thanks I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination: definition  Claims that Scalia was  assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). assassinated However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses: uses  In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders: euphemistically Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. (As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, thats not where Id want to be.) And a media bored to sobs with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. (Consensus: nothing good.) Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloombergs Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it. In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton: article The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. Its been an effective message, and one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders ties to the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urge Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, and spent close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he practically fell out of my chair when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCCs summer donor retreats on Marthas Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest and beyond preposterous, noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the  subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). subject e-mails Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat image and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Bernie at the DSCC retreatOn Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:OmgOn Feb 6, 2016 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com wrote> wrote:Can we tweet?On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:I think we shd give to NY postFrom:Tina@presidentclinton.comTo: bfallon@hillaryclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject:Re: IMG_0692.JPGDSCC event in edgartown last July. Getting exact dateOn Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Will send briefing for the event with attendeesFrom:bfallon@hillaryclinton.comTo: Tina@presidentclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 16:18Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPGThank you. We are on this Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" e-mail (to which Podesta was also party) Seitz-Wald wrote: During his 10 years on the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run. Sanders connection to the DSCC has become a issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees shes been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clintons relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: e-mailed We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him. Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But e-mails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days prior to the 9 February 2016 e-mail and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.  Cottle, Michelle.  "Chelsea Clinton Grows Up."
  The Atlantic.  19 January 2016. Seitz-Wald, Alex.  "Bernie Sanders a Regular at High-Dollar Donor Retreats."
  MSNBC.  9 February 2016. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013.