During the tenure of a Republican president with conservative views, the country was experiencing a monthly loss of 750,000 jobs.
Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True.
Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. Claim:  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) owns a patent on Ebola. : : The CDC patented a strain of Ebola in 2010.     : The CDC created Ebola and obtained a patent for it to restrict or profit from the development of a vaccine.  Example:  [Collected via email, October 2014]Is there any truth to the rumor that The United States Government is one of 6 owners of a patent on the Ebola virus?  Does this mean they have the right to demand blood samples from any victims?  Can they force those on government health care to take experimental Ebola vaccines that they develop?  Is the CDC purposely allowing Ebola to enter the country in order to cause a "run" on a newly developed vaccine?   Origins:  The 2014 Ebola outbreak began in December 2013 and is the deadliest recorded since the discovery of ebolaviruses in 1976. The severity and scope of the 2014 Ebola outbreak has caused significant global concern over the threat posed by the disease, and a number of rumors have resulted. One pervasive strain of rumors centers around "ownership" of what many understand to be the Ebola virus: more specifically, ownership of a patent granted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2010, Patent No. CA2741523A1. An abstract for that patent reads: CA2741523A1 The invention provides the isolated human Ebola (hEbola) viruses denoted as Bundibugyo (EboBun) deposited with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America) on November 26, 2007 and accorded an accession number 200706291. As the Ebola outbreak intensified, concern over the spread of the disease steadily increased; and the seemingly-suspect CDC patent on Ebola began to circulate on social media. Many users interpreted use of words like "invention" to indicate the U.S. government or its agents had literally invented Ebola in the lab as a tool to control the population or push forward an agenda involving expensive vaccines and cures.  However,  the 2014 Ebola outbreak is due to a strain of the virus known as Ebola Zaire and not the EboBun strain for which the CDC patent was obtained,  so any pharmaceutical dollars to be made would not be affected by a patent protecting a strain of the virus not central to the current outbreak. Speculation often centers upon the reasons any agency (government or privately held) would patent a virus such as Ebola if not to restrict the development of a cure or to capitalize on the profits from a potential cure. But at the time the Ebola patent was granted in 2010, the area of human gene patents was not as legally clear as it became following a Supreme Court decision a few years later. On 13 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics in respect to whether isolated genetic material was patent eligible. Justice Clarence Thomas opined in the decision that "genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible ... simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," and he added: decision In this case, by contrast, Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention. On 9 October 2014, professor of biological sciences at Purdue University and Ebola researcher David Sanders addressed rumors about the CDC's patent on Ebola. Sanders explained that overall the practice of patenting "life forms" is not uncommon for the CDC, noting that patents like the one the CDC holds on the EboBun strain of Ebola can circumvent for-profit patenting as well as facilitate broader research: The CDC does hold some patents on life forms, but it generally does this for the common good, so a commercial company can't come along and patent it. The CDC lets researchers work with the strain without fees. Until the Supreme Court's 2013 decision on isolated genetic material, the ambiguity involved made such patents a potential necessity. In light of it the CDC's intent in patenting Ebola appears to be far less nefarious.  Last updated:  10 October 2014    Mears, Bill.  "Court: Human Genes Cannot Be Patented"   CNN.  13 June 2014. On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life  Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate.  Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937.  The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995.  pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published  in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market.  However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus  frozen, dried or concentrated  for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed  and quickly  to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers.  Jackson, Paul W.  "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality."
  Michigan Farm News.  29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith.  "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten."
  Detroit Free Press.  29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella.  "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change."
  WPBN.  27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty.  "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste."
  WXMI.  29 July 2016. Claim:  An Indiana Congressman is introducing legislation to change the name of Interstate 69. Status:  False. Example:  [Hoosier Gazette, 2004] John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number. There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years.  While most believe this highway will be good for the states economy, religious conservatives believe "I-69" sounds too risqu and want to change the interstates number. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Despite   the disclaimer on the site of the Hoosier Gazette, a number of its satirical articles have been mistaken for real news (such as a report that a Kinsey Institute study found that having children lowers the IQ of parents).   disclaimer Hoosier Gazette report Now yet another entry from the Hoosier Gazette has made the news, this one proclaiming that Indiana Congressman John Hostettler is attempting to introduce legislation to rename Interstate 69 (because the pronunciation of its common abbreviation, I-69, sounds like a slang term for a sexual position).  The spoof has caused no small amount of consternation at Congressman Hostettler's office, where aides have been kept busy handling calls about the fictional legislation: entry John Hostettler Interstate 69 sexual position U.S. Rep. John Hostettler's office is fielding outraged calls about an Internet hoax that says he's proposed changing the name of Interstate 69 to Interstate 63 for religious reasons.  Hostettler spokesman Michael Jahr said Monday he had been fielding calls about the story all day.  "There is no truth in the story about any legislation changing the name of I-69," he said. "The Web site is satirical in nature, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd." The Hoosier Gazette has also published a sampling of responses to their I-69 article, many of them submitted by readers who didn't get the joke. responses Last updated:  21 November 2004    Sources:   Wehrman, Jessica.  "Hostettler's Office Fields Hoax Calls."   Evansville Courier & Press.  16 November 2004. Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts: conflicts of interest         In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media: court ruled that a lawsuit social media   While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981.  On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust: released listed The transition group has studied existing laws and regulations bearing on conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics of officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy ... In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm: suffered While he serves as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone elses care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. In regards to a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020.  If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction: back on the construction site announced Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic, said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful to their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture." Gerstein, Josh.  "Appeals court Greenlights Emoluments Suit Against Trump."
  Politico.  14 May 2020. Folley, Aris.  "Jimmy Carter Back to Building Homes for Habitat for Humanity One Day After Fall."
  The Hill.  7 October 2019. The New York Times.  "Texts of Carter Statement on Conflicts of Interest and Ethics; Appointees Guidelines."
  5 January 1977. Buchanan, Larry.  "The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency."
  The New York Times.  14 December 2016. While most of the leading Republican presidential candidates attended a Fox News-hosted debate in Iowa on 28 January 2016, Donald Trump boycotted the event (as a protest over Fox's allowing Megyn Kelly, whom Trump felt had asked him "unfair questions in a previous debate, to serve as a moderator) and instead hosted his own event as a fund-raiser for veterans. Trump instructed supporters to visit the website of the Donald J Trump Foundation for Vets in order to make donations to the cause. Some potential donors were skeptical, however, as the receiving entity was listed as the Donald J Trump Foundation and not a veterans' charity: website  The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. An email confirmation with a summary of your donation will be sent to the email address provided above. Around half of the $5.6 million raised by Trump during his veterans' charity event on 28 January 2016 was initially paid to the Donald J Trump Foundation, before then being distributed to veterans groups. The rest of the funds raised were donated directly to veterans charities, without first passing through the foundation. It's inaccurate to say that the money ended up in the candidate's personal account or was used to fund his presidential campaign. charities The handling of the donations became part of the focus of a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney Generals office against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump in June 2018. The lawsuit alleged that the joint operation of the fundraiser by the Trump foundation and the Trump's presidential campaign, among other examples, constituted improper political activity. When the case was finally settled in 2019, the New York Supreme Court noted that "the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans."  settled In response to queries over the matter, on 31 May 2016 Donald Trump held a press conference to announce that he eventually gave "close to six million dollars" to veterans groups and that the press "should be ashamed of themselves" for asking questions about the money he donated. "I have never received such bad publicity for doing such a good job," Trump said in a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan. He issued a list of the veterans groups who received the money, saying that "As of this moment, [the total amount donated] is $5.6 million. All of the money has been spent." Trump said he didn't release the names of the veterans organizations sooner because he wanted to respect their privacy and asserted that the money for a number of these groups had already been delivered some time earlier. Trump's list of checks already issued read as follows: 22Kill: $200,000. Achilles International : $200,000 American Hero Adventures: $100,000 Americas for equal living: $100,000 Americas vet dogs: the veteran canine corp Inc: $75,000 AmVets: $75,000 Armed Services YMCA: $75,000 Bob Woodruff Family Foundation Inc: $75,000 Central Iowa Shelter and Services: $100,000 Connected Warriors Inc: $75,000 Disabled American Veterans Charity: $115,000 Fisher House Foundation: $115,000 Folds of Honor Foundation: $200,000 Foundation for American Veterans: $75,000 Freedom Alliance : $75,000 Green Beret Foundation: $350,000 Higher Heroes USA: $75,000 Homes for our Troops: $100,000 Honoring Americas Warriors: $100,000 Hope for the Warriors: $65,000 Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund: $175,000 Canines for Warriors: $50,000 Liberty House: $100,00 Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation: $1.1m (including $1m from Trump himself, he says) Navy Seal Foundation: $465,000 Navy Marine Corps Relief Society: $75,000 New England Wounded Vets Inc: $75,000 Operation Home Front: $65,000 Project for Patriots: $100,000 (this check is check is ready to go but Trump is still vetting the group, he says, awaiting an IRS determination letter. They have to give us that final document. Puppy Jake Foundation: $100,000 Racing for Heroes, Inc: $200,000 Support Siouxland Soldiers: $100,000 Task Force Dagger Foundation: $50,000 The Mission Continues: $75,000 National Military Families Inc: $75,000 Veterans Airlift Command: $100,000 Veterans Count: $25,000 Veterans in Command Inc: $150,000 Vietnam Veterans Workshop Inc: $75,000 Warriors for Freedom Foundation: $50,000 And I believe were going to have some more coming in. MacGuill, Dan.  "Was Donald Trump Fined for Stealing Money Intended for Veterans?"
 14 November 2019. UPDATE [Nov. 14, 2019] Updated to report 2019 settlement of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General alleging improper political activity. In July 2022, a user of Snopes' Facebook tip group asked us if a viral photograph of a sign reading "The inventor of autocorrect has died the funnel will be held tomato" was real or if it had been digitally edited.  Snopes' Facebook tip group  The skepticism surrounding this sign is certainly understandable. After all, we've covered dozens of other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage on signs.  covered dozens other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage signs This picture shows a sign in the parking lot of a National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida. Here's a screenshot from Google Streeview that shows the sign at a similar angle.  National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida  This store regularly uses its sign to display humorous messages. Using Google Street View, we were able to find several other sign displays outside this store stretching back to 2007. While we didn't find an image of the "founder of autocorrect" sign, we did find a number of similar idioms, such as "It's Spring! We're so excited we wet our plants," "talk is cheap until you hire a lawyer," and "I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."  We reached out to National Vacuum for comment and they confirmed that the message "the inventor of autocorrect has died. The funnel will be held tomato" had previously been displayed on their sign. A spokesperson said: "Yes, we have used this sign message in the past." Who invented autocorrect? Did they die? Will the funnel be held tomato?  The history of autocorrect can be traced back to the early 1990s, when Microsoft implemented a new feature in their word processing program, Word 6.0. There have been numerous improvements and iterations of this idea since then, so there isn't really a single "inventor" of the feature. According to Wired, the "closest thing [autocorrect] has to an individual creator" would be Dean Hachamovitch, who worked on the feature for Microsoft in 1993. According to Wired When Hachamovitch first joined Microsoft, he was given a job on the Word team. This was back in the early '90s. Word processing was at a crossroads, split into factions. On one side were the people who wanted adornments and frillsimproved desktop publishing, color separation, and the like. On the other side was the functionality gang, with whom Hachamovitch threw in his lot. This camp simply wanted to help people get out of their own way. As Hachamovitch saw it, the main thing that people do on a word processor is typeand typing, in his estimation, is a matter of a little bit of creativity and a whole lot of scutwork. He could improve the typing experience by delivering us from scut. His aim was to make our typing sleek and invisible, smooth as speaking from a teleprompter. Ken Kocienda also deserves partial credit for inventing autocorrect, as he developed the feature for the original iPhone.  developed the feature for the original iPhone As of this writing, Hachamovitch and Kocienda are both still with us. Engber, Daniel. Who Made That Autocorrect? The New York Times, 6 June 2014. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/magazine/who-made-that-autocorrect.html. Lewis-Kraus, Gideon. The Fasinatng Fascinating History of Autocorrect. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/2014/07/history-of-autocorrect/. Accessed 8 July 2022. Stern, Joanna. Autocorrect Explained: Why Your IPhone Adds Annoying Typos While Fixing Others. Wall Street Journal, 27 Apr. 2022. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/autocorrect-explained-why-your-iphone-adds-annoying-typos-while-fixing-others-11651051891. Update [July 12, 2022]: Status changed to "True" based on new information. On Jan. 9, 2023, we reviewed an Ulta Beauty email scam that claimed recipients had won a $500 gift card. This was a phishing scam, and it did not come from Ulta Beauty. The Ulta Beauty email scam claimed to come from "Ulta Department 74130" via an email address that ended with the domain name, climatekids.net. "Answer and win a brand new $500 Ulta Beauty gift card," the email read.  We scanned the link in the scam email with IPQualityScore.com's helpful malicious URL scanner, which readers can use for free. The scan found that the link was "very risky" and contained "suspicious activity." malicious URL scanner We visited the link in a safe way and noted that it began on cosmosis.org, then redirected to quinyspike.com. The browser then redirected once more to resonatorbang.com, where we were presented with the fake survey. The fake survey began, "Congratulations! You've been chosen to receive a brand new $500 Ulta Beauty Gift Card! To claim, simply answer a few quick questions regarding your experience with us.Attention: This survey offer expires today, January 9, 2023." After the fake survey, we were redirected for the final time togillydealdays.com, where we were asked to provide our personal information and a credit card number. The credit card number was supposedly needed to pay shipping costs for the $500 gift card. We strongly advise against providing any such details to websites that readers are unfamiliar with. Always safeguard your personal and financial data when browsing online. Remember that if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. We checked the Whois domain information for the registration ofgillydealdays.com. According to the details we found, the website had been registered for the first time ever just four days before on Jan. 5. Brand new websites can often be a sign of a scam, and that's exactly what was happening here. "Malicious URL Scanner | Scan URLs for Malware | Malware URL Checker." IP Quality Score, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy, https://www.godaddy.com/whois. Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple.   . Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6).