Do Photos Show Children at Detention Center Under Trump's Watch?
In June 2019, a variety of news outlets published reports detailing the horrid conditions at immigrant detention centers along the United States' southern border. The Associated Press, for instance, quoted a lawyer named Warren Binford, who visited a facility in Texas and spoke to some of the immigrant children detained within, saying that the kids were living in "inhumane conditions." ABC News obtained a medical declaration that likened these detention centers to torture facilities. Associated Press ABC News As outrage from these reports grew online, actress Nancy Lee Grahn posted a set of photographs that supposedly documented these conditions and accused the Trump administration of forcing children to "sleep on cement floor with an aluminum blanket & lights on all night":  Nancy Lee Grahn   While the text of Grahn's tweet accurately reflects recent news reports, the photographs she used to illustrate her point were not taken during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.  These photographs are actually still images from a surveillance camera at a Border Patrol holding facility in Tucson, Ariz., in August 2015. The images were released as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the conditions at the agency's temporary holding facilities. lawsuit Here's an excerpt from an NPR report: NPR The holding cells were designed to be used for temporary holding  a period of hours. The American Immigration Council analyzed Border Patrol data and concluded that from September 2014 to August 2015, two-thirds of immigrants detained in Border Patrol facilities in the Southwest were held for more than 24 hours, and tens of thousands of people were held for more than three days. Photos of the cells show people crowded together in concrete cells. Several images show prisoners sitting or sleeping on bare floors with no mats available to them  even when there are unused mats in empty cells. While these photographs were taken during the Obama administration, the conditions described in Grahn's tweet still apply to the detention facilities operating under Trump. Physician Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a detention center after a flu outbreak sent five infants to the neonatal intensive care unit. In a medical declaration obtained by ABC News, Sevier compared the conditions to a "torture facility" and wrote that minors were dealing with "extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food." ABC News Binford, a law professor, told NPR: "They are worse than actual prison conditions. It is inhumane. It's nothing that I ever imagined seeing in the United States of America." NPR The second part of Grahn's tweet mentions "Sarah Fabian" and claims that companies are making $750 day to detain immigrant children. Fabian is a Department of Justice lawyer who attempted to defend the conditions at detention centers during a June 2019 Court of Appeals hearing. According to the Washington Post:  defend The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldnt be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a nights sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities. The position bewildered a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, who questioned whether government lawyers sincerely believed they could describe the temporary detention facilities as safe and sanitary if children werent provided adequate toiletries and sleeping conditions. One circuit judge said it struck him as inconceivable." [...] The government was in court to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that child migrants and their parents were detained in dirty, crowded, bitingly cold conditions inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities along the southern border. Migrants are first taken to those facilities after they are apprehended at the border. [...] U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee had found that migrants in Rio Grande Valley facilities were hungry, with some eating only sandwiches of two pieces of dry bread and one slice of ham. They were thirsty, with up to 20 migrants sharing the same cup to drink from the water cooler. They were embarrassed to use a toilet in front of 50 other people and they couldnt take a shower or brush their teeth or even wash their hands with soap and dry them with a towel, the judge found. At night, they couldnt sleep. The lights were left on, as they shivered beneath an aluminum blanket on the concrete floor, the judge found. Gee ruled in June 2017 that these Obama-era conditions violated a 1997 settlement agreement requiring that immigrant children in the governments custody be housed in safe and sanitary conditions, and that the government maintain concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. But the Trump administration protested. The 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, didnt say anything about providing a toothbrush, towels, dry clothing, soap, or even sleep, the administration has argued. Grahn's claim that companies make $750 "a kid a day to torture them" relates to the fact that some immigration detention centers are owned and operated by private for-profit companies.  Reuters reported in February 2019 that while it costs about $250 per day to hold a child at a permanent detention center, the cost can triple at temporary, privately owned, for-profit facilities such as the "Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children":  Reuters As the government seeks to rapidly expand the sites capacity, it has waived a federal requirement at Homestead meant to ensure children receive sufficient health care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for the children, previously required Homestead to maintain a clinician-to-child ratio of 1 to 12 to provide mental health services, according to a November 2018 report. But that requirement has been relaxed to 1 to 20, a Homestead program director said on Wednesday. The facility sits on federal property, and unlike established childrens shelters, such as smaller group or foster homes that hold migrant children across the country, is not governed by state child welfare regulations designed to protect youngsters from harm. [...] About 35 miles south of Miami, the facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the firms parent company, Caliburn International Corp., noted President Donald Trumps immigration policies were driving significant growth. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But at an influx facility like Homestead, the cost is triple that - around $750 per day. It is covered by American taxpayers. To sum up: Viral photographs supposedly documenting the conditions at immigration detention facilities under the Trump administration were actually taken in 2015 during Obama's tenure. The poor conditions at these Obama-era centers have continued or worsened under Trump.  Flynn, Meagan.  "Detained Migrant Children Got No Toothbrush, No Soap, No Sleep. Its No Problem, Government Argues."
  Washington Post.  21 June 2019. Torbati, Yeganeh; Cooke, Kristina.  "First Stop for Migrant Kids: For-Profit Detention Center."
  Reuters.  14 February 2019. Domonoske, Camila.  "Surveillance Stills From Border Patrol Facilities Show Crowded, Trash-Filled Cells."
  NPR.  19 August 2016. Gonzales, Richard.  "Obama Immigrant Detention Policies Under Fire."
  NPR.  12 June 2015. Marhsall, Serena; Zak, Lana; Metz, Jennifer.  "Doctor Compares Conditions for Unaccompanied Children at Immigrant Holding Centers to 'Torture Facilities.'"
  ABC News.  23 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019.
Claim: Kohl's is giving Facebook users a coupon for 50 percent off any purchase for liking and sharing a status.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] There is a Yes pass from Kohl's, saying that everything is 50% off. You need to share and comment Thanks Kohl's. Is this true?? _______________________________________________________________________ Happy Thanksgiving from Kohl's. 50 % OFF of everything. Origins: In mid-November 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a Thanksgiving coupon for 50 percent off all Kohl's purchases:  The appended links involved a variety of URLs (above, "couponbits.com"), and users who clicked through to claim their coupon landed on a page titled "Complete these steps below to get KOHL'S Reward!" While the page mimicked the style of Facebook-based content, it was hosted on a non-Facebook URL:   As with many similar coupon lures on Facebook, the dangled bait was based upon an actual Kohl's coupon (albeit one whose savings were far more modest):   In response to an avalanche of Facebook complaints from frustrated users who hadn't received coupons after completing the steps, Kohl's verified account replied: Please know this is not a valid Kohl's offer. Social media users are largely acquainted with survey scams of this type; Kohl's (previously), Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as scam bait (by folks mining personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart bait A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. It's likely Kohl's planned to release Black Friday coupons on or around Thanksgiving, but the retailer was unlikely to do so by forcing its customers to like and share a Facebook status update.   Last updated: 19 November 2015 Originally published: 19 November 2015 Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions.  OF AND  INFORMATION:    Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. As social media users sorted through a flurry of news articles, opinion pieces, calls for boycotts, and other hot takes in September 2018 about Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new Nike ad campaign, some stumbled across what appeared to be a news article reporting that Ford USA was following Nike's example by making the former NFL quarterback the face of their new ad campaign: articles   This item was not a social media link to a genuine news article, nor did the featured image show a genuine Ford advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. This item was created as a joke for the political humor section of the Reddit social news site. Kaepernick became a controversial figure in 2016 when he started kneeling during the pre-game performance of the U.S. national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. A number of conservative football fans, including President Trump, maintained that Kaepernick's protest was disrespectful to veterans, so when Nike announced that the former football star would be featured in their latest ad campaign, social media users urged each other to boycott the brand and started posting images purportedly showing them destroying various pieces of Nike apparel. 2016 Twitter user @Patterico apparently found the videos of people burning their shoes to be amusing but noted that the entertainment value would increase if people were burning Ford F-150 trucks instead: I'll pay Ford $10 if they put Kaepernick in a commercial for F-150s so I can watch some dumbass torch his pickup on Twitter, who's with me  Patterico (@Patterico) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Reddit user u/fakenewsanchorman saw this tweet and decided to create a fake news item (note the username) stating that Ford USA had indeed named Kaepernick as their new brand ambassador. On 5 September 2018, his meme was posted to the Political Humor subreddit under the title "Please Make This Actually Happen." Political Humor That Reddit user admitted in the comments section that his image did not reflect a genuine news item, but we double-checked with FoxNews.com to see if reporter Judson Berger had filed any such report. This article does not appear on Berger's author page nor anywhere else on the Fox News web site. author page This bit of fake news may have sparked sparked interest in a genuine, albeit outdated, article about Ford's stance on the national anthem protests. In September 2017, the company officially took the side of the protesting players, saying that they respected the "individuals' right to express their views": article "We respect individuals' rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share," the company said. "That's part of what makes America great" ... Martha Firestone Ford, owner and chairwoman of the Detroit Lions and a member of the Ford family, issued a statement criticizing President Trump for his comments. "Our game has long provided a powerful platform for dialogue and positive change in many communities throughout our nation," she said. "Negative and disrespectful comments suggesting otherwise are contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions." Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Wiener-Bronner, Danielle.  "Ford: We Respect the Right of NFL Players to Protest."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. El Paso lawyer Maxey Scherr, who seeks the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, described the Obamacare law as vital to the health of millions of Texans in an interview with progressive Houston blogger Charles Kuffner. We have more women living in poverty in this state than almost anywhere else, Scherr said in the interview, which Kuffnerrecorded and placed onlineFeb. 4, 2014. We do? By email, Scherr campaign spokesman Victor Reyes told us Scherr based her conclusion on state rankings inTexas on the Brink,a March 2013 report by the Legislative Study Group, a Texas House caucus chaired by Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. According to the report, Texas ranks fourth nationally in the percentage of women living in poverty, a conclusion attributed in a footnote toinformation sorted bythe Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. We clicked online to the Kaiser information and came up with a chart indicating that in 2011-12, 23 percent of Texas women were living in poverty, tying the state with California and Arizona for the fourth-highest rate nationally. According to the chart (see below), 24 percent of women in Hawaii were living in poverty; 26 percent of women in Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico; and 27 percent in Mississippi. Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014) A Kaiserexplanatory notesays the women-in-poverty percentages reflect the share of female adults aged 19-64 with incomes less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four in every state but Alaska and Hawaii, that poverty level was $22,350 in 2011 and $23,050 in 2012, according to the note. This information also can be sorted by the number of women in poverty in each state. By this metric, Texas--with nearly 1.8 million women in poverty--trailed only California, with 2.7 million women in poverty (see below). Source: Web page,Adult Poverty Rate by Gender,State Health Facts, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation (accessed Feb. 13, 2014) Next, we wondered if the presented rates and rankings were up to date. Nope: By email, Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving the poor, sent us achartshe built using the latest estimates from the American Community Survey for 2012 as overseen by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the 2012 estimates, 17.8 percent of Texas women aged 18-64 lived in poverty that year. Fourteen states had more women in poverty: Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Oregon and Michigan, according to the chart. But rounding these percentages leaves Texas tied for fifth--with Ohio, Montana, Florida and Oklahoma--with 18 percent of women in poverty, the chart indicates. Mississippi, ranked No. 1, was alone with 25 percent of women in poverty. In raw numbers, California led the nation with 2 million women in poverty, according to the chart, followed by Texas (1.4 million) and Florida and New York (1 million each). Lee said: Poverty is consistently higher for females than for men across the country. There are a lot of causes of this, but one is that many women work in historically underpaid jobs. Women who must raise children alone are especially vulnerable. Our ruling Scherr said more women live in poverty in Texas than almost anywhere else. In raw numbers, California in 2012 had the most women in poverty followed by Texas. But poverty rate is a more reasonable yardstick to compare states. The rounded Texas rate--indicating about 18 percent of its women aged 18-64 lived in poverty in 2012--tied the state for fifth with some other states. Breaking out each state's rate to tenths of percentage points, though, shows 14 states with a greater share of women in poverty than Texas. We rate this claim, which could have been more precise, as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on 28 January 2017 restricts immigration into the U.S. from seven countries with predominantly Muslim populations. However, memes and stories quickly appeared to point out that this stay does not include nations where he has business interests. The order suspends entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries. order report Prior to his inauguration, Trump said in January 2017 said that he would not divest himself of ownership of his business holding, but instead turn over management duties to his two sons. Trump's executive branch financial disclosure form, which he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission in 2015, lists LLCs based in Dubai, the U.A.E's largest city: said disclosure form,           Dubai is also the site of a Trump-owned golf course slated for completion in 2017. However, it is not immediately clear whether the sites of Trump's business holdings have anything to do with the countries affected by his executive order. completion Trump is also currently licensing his name for use on two luxury towers in Istanbul, Turkey. The disclosure form stated an income between $1 million and $5 million from that agreement: licensing   The president mentioned the towers in a December 2015 interview with Breitbart News chair Stephen Bannon, who would go on to become Trump's chief advisor. Trump said at the time: interview I have a little conflict of interest 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towerstwo towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two.. In January 2017, the State Department issued a travel warning for Turkey, citing "increased threats from terrorist groups." Trump's FEC filing also included holdings in Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Indonesia. issued Nowrasteh, Alex. "Guide to Trumps Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." The Cato Institute. 26 January 2017. Sullivan, Andy et al. "Trump says won't divest from his business while president." Reuters. 11 January 2017. Riehl, Dan. "Trump blasts Obama while warning of World War III." Breitbart.com. 1 December 2015. U.S. Department of State. "Turkey Travel Warning." travel.state.gov. 25 January 2017. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. Claim:  The payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 will be delayed until October 2015.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Is this true that refunds for 2014 will be delayed until October of 2015?   Origins:  On 29 September 2014, the National Report published an article positing that the payment of federal tax refunds for 2014 would be delayed until October 2015: article Normally when you file your taxes whatever money is owed back to you is quickly repaid. The process of getting your money back has been made even quicker in recent years through the use of E-file and direct deposit of Federal tax rebates. But starting in 2015 Federal tax refunds for the 2014 fiscal year are going to take longer for Americans to receive. A lot longer. The deadline to have your Federal taxes filed will remain April 15th, but under new directives issued to the IRS no refunds are to be issued before October 15th, 2015. This means that early filers who normally receive their refunds around the beginning of February will have to wait an additional 7 months longer than normal to get the money owed to them. The National Report article used fabricated quotes from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and politician Rand Paul to make it appear like an authentic news story. Although there is no truth to the claim that 2014 tax refunds will be delayed until 2015, nearly 10,000 people had shared the article on Facebook within days of its publication. The National Report is a fake news site whose (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. In addition to the IRS tax refund delay article, the site has published posts like "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."   Last updated:  1 October 2014 New Jersey doesnt just need a lot of federal aid to rebuild a coastline ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, the state also deserves it, according to Gov. Chris Christie.NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams asked Christie recently if its fair for people who have no interests in the Jersey Shore to ask, Why the money? Why the effort, if this is the new normal?Well, listen, it's fair to ask it but I have the answer, Christie said during the Oct. 30 interview. The answer is that for New Jersey, which gives so much to this country -- by the way, 50th in return of our federal tax dollars. So New Jerseyans send more than any other state in America in federal taxes, getting back less. When that's done and you see that our state is a state that needs this to contribute to our economy and also to the soul and the vibrancy of our state, I think we have very good answers and arguments to make. And you count on one thing: you're looking at the guy who is going to make those arguments.With Christie building part of his case for federal assistance around the states return on federal tax dollars, PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether his premise is true.Add Donor State to the list of New Jerseys monikers.Depending on the year -- and whether adjustments are made to federal data -- New Jersey ranks at or near the bottom nationwide in this category.The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, tracked how much the federal government collected through taxes and returned through expenditures to states every year from 1981 to 2005.The Washington, D.C.-based foundation calculated the federal tax burden -- a measurement meant to account for taxes that are assessed in one state, but impact taxpayers elsewhere -- to conduct its analysis.In 17 of those 25 years, New Jersey came in last place, receiving 70 cents or less for every dollar it sent to the federal government.In 2005 -- the most recent year analyzed by the Tax Foundation -- the federal government gave New Jersey 61 cents for every dollar it took. That was the smallest return of any state.But that was seven years ago. Though the Tax Foundation hasnt updated its findings, other studies show New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes 18 states in the region, released a May 2011 report on federal spending and taxation patterns that focused on New Jersey.New Jersey ranked 48th in the nation. Only Minnesota and Delaware received smaller returns on their federal tax dollars in 2009, according to the report, which relied on raw, unadjusted data.PolitiFact New Jerseys analysis of federal data from 2010 also put New Jersey in 48th place. So even the raw data put New Jersey near the bottom in this category.But Colleen Cain, a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute who prepared the 2011 report, said in an e-mail, that the news behind this is not all bad.In the report, Cain attributes the low ranking to New Jerseys relatively high income levels and greater-than-average business income tax contribution, coupled with a relatively low need for federal aid.It does, however, underscore the importance of states like New Jersey in supporting the fiscal health of the nation generally.Our rulingChristie said that New Jersey is 50th in return of our federal tax dollars.The Tax Foundations analysis of 2005 data, which was adjusted to reflect each states overall federal tax burden, ranked New Jersey 50th in the nation in this category.The state received 61 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. that year.Though that research is outdated, more recent analysis of raw data shows New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.On the Truth-O-Meter, Christies statement registers as Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. After an Austin mayoral candidate proposed to permanently cut homeowner taxes, City Council Member Mike Martinez said the idea wouldnt benefit most residents. Martinez, also a candidate for mayor, reacted after attorney Steve Adler said the council could have created a city homestead exemption, or tax break for homeowners, years before. We need to act, Adler said Aug. 4, 2014, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews storythat day. Adler called for a 20 percent exemption--as in a 20 percent cut to each homes taxable value--at a city-estimated cost of $36 million a year. Martinez and a third mayoral aspirant, City Council Member Sheryl Cole, said Adlers idea revealed his lack of governing experience. Martinez said: This would be $36 million that would benefit the wealthiest Austinites the most. The majority of Austinites rent and would see no financial benefit at all. We wondered about Martinezs statement that most Austin residents rent, rather than own, the places they live. We did not delve into his contention that renters wouldnt benefit from Adlers proposal. To our inquiry, a Martinez campaign spokesman, Nick Hudson, pointed out a July 31, 2014,city reportincluding an illustration stating that 183,000 of the citys 331,000 households in 2012 (55 percent) were renters--a proportion in keeping with trends in 2000 and 2008, the report says. By contrast, 148,000 households, 45 percent, were owners. Hudson also forwarded a web link toa city-generated chartdrawing on the 2010 U.S. Census indicating 51 percent of Austins residents were renters that year. To get our own fix on this, we queried Lloyd Potter, the Texas state demographer, who said by email Martinezs claim is supported by the best available resource, American Community Survey data annually gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the surveys taken from 2010 through 2012, Potter said, 418,138, or 52 percent, of an estimated 799,183 Austin residents lived in rental units compared with 381,045 residents, or 48 percent, who were owners. He said the 2012 survey alone suggests 432,400, 53 percent, of the citys 823,340 residents were renters compared with 390,940, nearly 48 percent, who were owners, Potter said. Separately, a bureau spokesman, Robert Bernstein, responded to our inquiry by emailing a chart based on the bureaus 2012 survey suggesting there were more housing units rented in Austin than units that were occupied by owners. According to the survey, 183,080 of 330,838 housing units (55 percent) were renter-occupied with 147,758 (45 percent) being owner-occupied. (We suspect these figures were the basis of the information in the report noted by Martinezs camp.) Occupied housing units 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey (chart received by email from Robert Bernstein of the bureau). Our ruling Martinez said the majority of Austinites rent where they live. Government surveys show slightly more than half the citys residents rent. We rate this statement True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.