Does the IRS Send Unsolicited E-Mails About Tax Refunds?
Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons:     A March 2006 mass phish e-mailing took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and invited them to click on a link which took them to an IRS web site form through which they could claim those refunds.   IRS Notification - Please Read This . After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $163.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here here Regards,Internal Revenue Service  Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.   Of course, the links included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; they redirected claimants to impostor IRS sites (hosted on servers in a variety of countries) and instructed them to enter all sorts of sensitive personal information (credit card number, expiration date, CVV code and ATM PIN) into an on-line form so that the putative refunds could be posted directly to their debit/credit card or bank accounts. Any information entered into such forms can be harvested by scammers and used for identity theft and other financial crimes. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, they send notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation. Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. Miller, Anita.  "Internet Scammers Using IRS Logo for Bait."
  San Marcos Daily Record.  17 March 2006. Speier, Drew.  "E-Mail Scam Uses Fake IRS Web Site."
  WFIE-TV.  2 March 2006. KPHO-TV.  "Consumers Warned of IRS 'Phishing' Scam."
  2 March 2006. KXAN-TV.  "New E-Mail Scam Promises Money From the IRS."
  17 March 2006. WFSB-TV.  "Latest Scam Targets Tax Returns."
  2 March 2006. WHEC-TV.  "IRS Warning Taxpayers About Fake E-Mail Scam."
  2 March 2006. WLNS-TV.  "Beware of Tax Scam."
  7 March 2006.
In a 75-minute rally speech that revisited his response to the Charlottesville, Va., unrest and scolded the national media, President Donald Trump slid in a note of pride about the United States balance of trade in energy. We're going to do an infrastructure bill, Trump said. We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, all across our beautiful land. Our greatest creations, our most incredible buildings, our most beautiful works of art are just waiting to be brought to life. American hands will build this future. American energy will power this future. We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. Was he correct to say that the United States has become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently? Short answer: No. But to get to the short answer, you have to wade through several possible interpretations of what Trump meant. (The White House did not clarify his meaning for us.) One way to read Trumps statement is to take it literally -- that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong. We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time, said Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University who specializes in energy security issues. We were once, during the time of JD Rockefeller, the world's near monopoly on kerosene. Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time. Piped gas to Mexico and Canada are normal events. We have a massive electricity trade with Canada. Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become anetexporter of energy -- meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. This is less wrong, but still not accurate. This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer, said Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy. In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administrationconcludedthat the United States would become a net energy exporteraround 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing. Whats clear is that the United States has not yet become a net exporter of energy, as Trumps past-tense remark indicated. If that day comes in 2026 -- and it may or may not -- that would be two years after Trump finishes a possible second term. Perhaps rather than energy, Trump meant to say crude oil. If this is what Trump meant, the statement would still be problematic. It wouldnt be the first time ever. And the relevant change was signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama. On Dec. 18, 2015, the United Statesenacted legislationto repeal a ban on most crude-oil exports that had been in place since the energy-crisis days of 1975. (Exports of refined petroleum were not blocked by the law, just crude.) Heres a chart showing U.S. crude-oil exports going back to the 1980s. (The years between 1975 and 2015 show some export activity because trade with some countries, such as Canada, was exempt from the law.) The rapid rise in crude-oil exports near the end of the chart reflects the lifting of the export-restriction law. Its possible to substitute any number of energy subcategories into Trumps remark to see whether they make the statement more accurate. Some do, some dont. The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products sincearound 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct. Natural gas is a more promising option. The United States is not yet a net exporter of natural gas, but the difference between imports and exports has narrowed for nine consecutive years,according to EIA, falling to its smallest gap ever in 2016. And the agencyprojectsthat the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas once the 2017 numbers are tallied up. Energy experts say that this is a significant development, though one that Trump can take little credit for. It has been a trend that was activated by the U.S. shale boom and made possible by the Obama administration's policy on liquefied natural gas exports, said Anna Mikulska, a fellow with Rice Universitys Center for Energy Studies. Ironically, Bordoff added, a different Trump policy goal --reviewing Obama-era increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles-- could make it harder for the United States to become a net exporter of energy, the very thing he applauded in Phoenix. Trumps stated intention to ease fuel economy standards actually undermines the goal of becoming a net energy exporter, because it means the U.S. will be consuming more oil than we would otherwise, he said. The EIA projections assume the planned increases in fuel economy go into effect, so the EIA projection of when we become a net exporter of energy would be pushed further out if we weaken fuel economy standards. Trump said that we have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. This statement is problematic regardless of how you interpret his statement -- gross energy exports, net energy exports, gross crude-oil exports, and net natural gas exports. The closest he would come to being accurate is if he were referring to net natural gas exports, but even there, it hasnt happened yet, contrary to what his past-tense statement indicates. We rate the statement False. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True. Claim:  Destructive act is conveniently blamed on household pet. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1993] Their mother had baked a Dutch apple pie for a special event. She left it on the kitchen table to cool while she ran an errand, warning the boys not to touch it. But the pie smelled wonderful, and the boys couldn't resist a tiny bite. One bite became several, until a major chunk of the pie had been eaten. They then heard their mother's car pull into the garage, and they knew they were trapped unless they could quickly cover up their crime. The future lawyer got a brilliant idea. He grabbed the family cat and shoved its face into the pie, smearing its whiskers with gooey filling and crumbs. His mother walked in, looked at the cat, and saw what she interpreted as guilt written all over its face. She immediately grabbed the cat and threw it out the back door into a stream that ran behind the house.  [Brunvand, 1989] I recently heard about a friend of a friend  what you call a  FOAF  who is an interior decorator with a thriving business on Chicago's wealthy North Shore.  He had just finished painting an elegant home in Wilmette, and was going around with a can of touch-up paint, making sure everything was perfect. He finished the last brush stroke, stepped back to admire his work, and kicked the paint can over onto the priceless Oriental rug.  What to do? At that moment, the client's yappy, snappy, obnoxious toy poodle, Fifi, trotted into the room.  Thinking quickly, the decorator scooped her up and dropped her into the puddle of paint, at the same time exclaiming loudly, "Fifi! Bad Dog! What have you done?"  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] A husband breaks a purple vase that belongs to his wife. she thinks the dog did it and she hates the dog. In her husband's absence she kills the dog and buries it in the back yard. the story ends with the husband confessing that in fact he and not the dog broke the vase, and the wife, who is contemplating the mound behind the rose bushes in the garden doesn't know what to say. Origins:  Shoving    a hapless pet into the incriminating mess is a traditional way of shifting blame. One of Brunvand's readers recalls hearing the spilled paint story in 1929, so this one has been with us for a while. Although pets can (and have!) spilled cans of paint, it's not reasonable to assume any self-respecting cat would have an interest in Dutch apple pie. A more believable way of presenting the story would be to change the food item into a tortire, a renowned French-Canadian meat pie. (Though tortire is good eating any time, it's a traditional Christmas Eve food in Quebecois households, often served at "Le Reveillion," the meal following Midnight Mass.) Another legend, one about kinky teen sex, employs the scapegoated pet theme. In "Stain Feign," teenagers who've decided to engage in anal sex on the family's brand new white sofa afterwards rush out to buy a puppy to have something to blame the mess on. Stain Feign Barbara "canine one one" Mikkelson Sightings:  Our "blamed pet" legend shows up in a 1972 Toni Morrison novel, Bluest Eye, in a scene involving two children, a cat, and a berry cobbler. Last updated:  1 August 2011 The Baby Train    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!   New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.   ISBN 0-393-30711-5   (pp. 132-134). Curses! Broiled Again!    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good to Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 61-63). Too Good to Be  The Big Book of Urban Legends In June 2023, viral social media posts claimed to show Tom Cruise's eerily similar-looking stunt doubles posing in a photograph together. According to the posts, the menallegedly took his place to perform stunts duringthefilming of the latest "Mission Impossible" film. The image was fake. Not only did it show visual clues of being inauthentic  for instance, the "Tom Cruise" double in the middle appeared to be missing fingernails  we tracked down aFacebook user who took credit for makingthe image(as well as others like it) via an artificial-intelligence-powered (AI) software program. Facebook user the image Tom Cruise stunts double Tom is not even in the picture ,he took the picture pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH  Brother G.O (@OyinTGSPE) June 9, 2023 June 9, 2023  100% AI. Look at this. Tom Cruise does his own stunts like the Burj Khalifa and that motor stunt of a cliff, so he does not use stunt double. pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B  DarkKnight (@iamshinerk) June 7, 2023 June 7, 2023  When we looked closely at the three faces in the image, we noted that, while they looked eerilylike Cruise, they appeared to be images modeled off his face but with small differences in facial features. Their complexions also appearedinauthentically smooth, with wax-like skin.For comparison, we looked at2023pictures of Cruisetaken by Getty Images. 2023 pictures taken by Getty Images We also did a reverse-image search on Google and found no credible source saying the in-question image was a real photograph. reverse-image On June 3, 2023, a Facebook account for Midjourney, an AI-powered program that creates digital images based on prompts, shared the images of Cruise and his alleged "stunt doubles" in apostby Singapore-based user Ong Hui Woo. Woo wrote, "If you intend to copy and paste these photos on your website or your FB, please at least mentioned and give credit to the original creator (which is me) or Midjourney, the platform where all these images are created." post (Ong Hui Woo/Facebook) We reached out to Woo, who told us that he created the images on June 3, 2023, and posted them to the Midjourney Facebook page on the same day. Given that the in-question image has visual signs of being fake, that we did not find a reliable media outlet calling it real, and that we identified a Facebook user who took credit for its creation via an AI-image generator, we have rated this claim "Fake." We frequently fact-check AI-generated images and have many tips on how to identify them. AI-generated images many tips Evon, Dan. "Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches." Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/.Accessed 9 June 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Facebook Chat with Ong Hui Woo." 9 June 2023. Lee, David Emery, Jessica. "4 Tips for Spotting AI-Generated Pics." Snopes, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464595/artificial-intelligence-media-literacy/.Accessed 9 June 2023. "LIVE! Jimmy Kimmel Live! Airs Every Weeknight at 11:35 p.m. ET And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/jimmy-kimmel-live-airs-every-weeknight-at-11-35-p-m-et-and-news-photo/1247561509. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise at the 34th Annual Producers Guild Awards Held at The..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-at-the-34th-annual-producers-guild-awards-held-news-photo/1247493313. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise Walks on the Grid Prior to the Running of the Formula 1..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-walks-on-the-grid-prior-to-the-running-of-the-news-photo/1253020214. Accessed 9 June 2023. Claim:  Con artists are circulating letters demanding the completion of fake IRS forms that would arm them with all the information necessary to steal the identities and empty the bank accounts of those who fall for this ruse.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The IRS issued a warning of an identity theft scam that uses a phony form and an official looking letter from a bank. The letter states that the bank is updating its records in order to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest income or having tax withheld at 31 percent on the interest paid on the taxpayer's account. The letter askes that customers submit the enclosed phony Form W-9095. This is a scam. There is no IRS Form W-9095. This is only an attempt to gain personal information from unsuspecting taxpayers.  The Internal Revenue Service is sounding the alarm about a fraudulent scheme that uses fictitious bank correspondence and IRS forms to try to trick taxpayers into disclosing personal and bank account information.  Con artists use the information to steal the taxpayer's identity and bank account deposits. Reports of the scam have surfaced from coast-to-coast. Dozens of victims have been identified. In the scam, a letter is sent out claiming to be from the taxpayer's bank. It states that the "bank" is updating its records in order to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest or having tax withheld on interest paid on bank accounts or other financial dealings. Legally, banks must report interest to the IRS and taxpayers must include it as income. The scam "bank" correspondence encloses a phony IRS form for personal and financial data. The letter urges the recipient to fax the completed form to a specific number within seven days or lose the reporting and withholding exemption, resulting in withholding of 31 percent on the account's interest. The scheme promoters then use the faxed information to impersonate the taxpayer and gain access to the taxpayer's finances. One such phony form is labeled "W-9095, Application Form for Certificate Status/Ownership for Withholding Tax." It requests personal data frequently used to prove identity, such as a passport number and mother's maiden name. It also asks for sensitive financial data such as bank account numbers, passwords and PIN numbers. The fictitious W-9095 appears to be an attempt to mimic the genuine IRS Form W-9, "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification." The only personal information a genuine W-9 requests is the name, address and Social Security number or employer identification number of the taxpayer. Variations:  In December 2008, the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's tax department, formerly Revenue Canada) issued a warning about a similar scheme being run on Canadian taxpayers.  warning Origins:  In April 2002, a new ruse designed to trick victims into giving out personal information that could lead to identity theft was unleashed on the unsuspecting throughout the USA. It arrived in the form of fake Internal Revenue Service forms which appeared to have been mailed by taxpayers'  banks. Here's how the scam worked: An account holder would receive a letter on bank stationery requesting information for the purpose of reporting earnings to the Internal Revenue Service. Attached to the letter would be a fake IRS form identified as W-9095. The phony document was based on a valid IRS form called a W-9 and thus would look passingly familiar to those accustomed to dealing with IRS forms. Those less familiar with tax forms would still be taken in by the ruse because the phony request for detailed information appeared genuine. The letter would say the recipient must return the completed by fax within seven days or the government would withhold 31% of the interest on his bank accounts. The happy prospect of keeping one-third of the taxpayer's earned interest out of the government's hands and the fear-inspiring impetus of having to act quickly (within seven days, remember) would imbue this combination of promise and threat with an untold power to persuade, one that would likely temporarily blind the victim to what was really going on. The real form (the W-9) doesn't ask for account numbers, but the bogus form (the W-9095) did. It also asked for marital status, place of birth, parents' names, bank account number, passport information, work history, and passwords;  in other words, just about everything a con artist would need to financially impersonate the victim.  Similar fake forms were labeled W-88BEN and W-8888. (Banks use a legitimate W-88BEN to confirm non-U.S. customers can remain exempt from tax reporting requirements, but the real W-88BEN does not ask for the depth of taxpayer information the fake one did.) There's no way of telling how many folks have fallen for this trick or what the provision of their private information cost them in cold hard currency, but it doesn't take great imagination to picture what use any halfway skilled swindler could put such information to. Armed with all the completed forms gave, it would be child's play to empty bank accounts and apply for charge cards and loans in the pigeon's name. This con contains the potential to be highly effective because little about it looks out of place or obviously wrong. Folks trust their banks (they leave their money there, after all), so letters from such bastions of trust asking recipients to complete yet another tax form won't be greeted with skepticism, especially when those letters also contain the news that doing so is eminently to the benefit of the account holders. Likewise, that an IRS form would ask for everything short of shoe size wouldn't strike many as in any way unusual. About the only part of the transaction that might cause an eyebrow or two to be lifted is the insistence that the completed forms be faxed to the IRS rather than returned by mail. Yet once again, in a world now accustomed to the notion that personal tax returns can be e-filed with taxpayers' signatures faxed in support of the electronically transferred returns, faxing doesn't seem terribly out of place. It always pays to be wary. Make the time to call your bank when asked for such information, even if it appears it's the IRS doing the asking. Better to waste five minutes on the phone convincing your bank that you're an idiot than keeping those five minutes to yourself and proving that you are. Those who have received questionable documents that purported to be from the IRS or who have completed such forms and faxed them off should call 1-800-829-0433, the IRS hotline. They should also contact the various credit bureaus to alert them that their identities might have been stolen and to be on the look out for newly acquired charge cards under their name. Barbara "credit carded" Mikkelson Additional information:        2002 Alerts   (Controller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks)   Last updated:  3 February 2010    Sources:   Caldwell, Bert.   "Fake IRS Forms Sent to Taxpayers."   The [Spokane] Spokesman-Review.  3 May 2002  (p. A12).     Hadley, Jane.   "New Mail Scam Aims to Steal Your Identity and Money."   The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  2 May 2002  (p. A1).     Stefanova, Kristina.  "Scam's Scope National: Form Targets Bank Account Holders."   The Washington Times.  12 April 2002.     Svaldi, Aldo.   "Identity-Theft Scam Uses Fake IRS Form, Feds Say."   The Denver Post.  30 April 2002  (p. C1).     The Associated Press.  "Fake IRS Form Part of Identity Scam."   13 April 2002.     [Greensboro] News & Record.  "Fake IRS Form Seeks Personal Information."   14 April 2002  (p. B2).     Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Your Money: Tax Fraud."   6 May 2002  (p. B3).     The Washington Post.  "After Getting Blasted By S . . . ."   5 May 2002  (p. H4). On 16 February 2017, the web site FocusNews.info published a story based in part on the myth that First Lady Michelle Obama employed an absurdly extravagant staff. The first paragraph gives a quick indication as to its slant: story Michelle Obama will go down in history as the First Lady who spent more money than any other. In addition to her 214 personal assistants, 32 gardeners, 11 dog walkers and her own mother on the government payroll as a day care provider, Moochelle also purchased $11 million worth of new furniture, an airplane, four yachts and two limousines with taxpayer money. The story goes on to promote the claim that President Donald Trump ordered that Obama be billed for $11 billion, not only for the "new furniture" and other extravagances, but $10 billion for "vacations and the balance in food, clothing, liquor and cigarettes that should have been paid for out of their own pockets." Far from having "214 personal assistants," Obama had a staff of about two dozenpeople working for her during her tenure as First Lady. The allegation that her mother, Marian Robinson, would receive a $160,000 pension has also been debunked. staff debunked. Another site, LastLineOfDefense.org, published a similar "report" stating that Trump instead billed Obama's husband, former President Barack Obama, for a $2.1 billion "vacation scam" that would have paid for his family and staff to indulge in free trips until the year 2036. published Much like LastLineOfDefense.org, FocusNews.info does have a disclaimer regarding its content stating that the site "does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information," as seen below:   The disclaimer appears as a small pop-up, as well as its own separate section on the website. section In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. A photograph supposedly showing the mouth of an adult suffering from hyperdontia (i.e., an excessive number of teeth) has been circulating online for several years. In February 2019, the Facebook page "Pictures From History" renewed interest in this image when they shared it on social media with the caption "Inside the mouth of an adult suffering from Hyperdontia": Facebook Pictures From History   Hyperdontia is a genuine medical condition involving the growth of more teeth than is usual (also known as "supernumerary teeth"), as described by the Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago: medical condition described Extra teeth, also called supernumerary teeth or hyperdontia, is a condition in which the jaws contain more teeth  usually permanent teeth  than the usual number. These extra teeth are usually categorized in two ways, by their shape and by their position. They can be of normal shape but simply be extra (called supplemental). They can be barrel-shaped (tuberculate), peg-shaped or conical, multiple shapes (compound odontoma), or an undefined shape (complex odontoma). They can form in several places. They may be mesiodens (midline), paramolar (on either side of the molars), or distomolar (behind the molars). Most often occuring is the mesiodens, which is peg-shaped and grows between the top two center teeth. However, the viral photograph seen here does not offer a genuine look at the mouth of a person experiencing that condition. This image has been online since at least December 2010, when it was shared on the Blogspot blog Holyloly. The image reached a larger audience a few months later when it was included in a post from the SCP Foundation -- a fictional organization that purports to cover a wide range of highly classified materials -- in a blog post about SCP-478, an imaginary disease that causes a body to generate extra teeth: Holyloly SCP Foundation SPC-478 will enter a victims mouth while they sleep, and attach onto the soft palate in the upper nasal cavity, usually blocking one nostril. The bodys mucus production will increase, leading the victim, upon waking, to believe that they have developed a minor cold. From there, the victims palate will begin to generate teeth in addition to the gingiva's (gums) normal replacement of teeth. This growth process will begin at a rate several times faster than normal tooth growth, and quickly increases in speed and severity. It's clear that this image was created with the help of digital photo-editing software. It appears that someone took a genuine photograph of a mouth and then duplicated several of its teeth to make it appear as if the picture captured an extremely severe case of hyperdontia. Here we've circled a few of the teeth that were digitally repeated throughout this image:   Interestingly, this isn't the only fake photograph purporting to show an extreme case of hyperdontia. Again, we found that these images were created with the same technique of duplicating existing teeth:   While researching this article we came across one more example below of this sort of digitally doctored dentistry. This image on the left of the following graphic is often shared as if it showed a person suffering from hyperdontia, but again, this picture was created by digitally duplicated existing teeth. The image on the right of the graphic below, meanwhile, is unaltered and shows the mouth of a person who genuinely experienced a (less severe form of) this condition: person   Parolia, Abhishek.  "Management of Supernumerary Teeth."
  Journal of Conservative Dentistry.  July 2011. Lurie Children's Hospital.  "Extra Teeth (Supernumerary Teeth, Hyperdontia)."
  Retrieved 4 February 2019. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007.