Does This Video Show Refugees Looting a Café in Spain?
Another video seemingly offered to malign refugees started to spread online in August 2018, in this case one purportedly showing a group of dark-skinned people smashing glass cases and stealing foodstuffs froma small caf. The video bore the caption "Refugees Welcome to Spain," an apparent nod to the "Refugees Welcome" sign that was hung on Madrid City Hall a few years prior: spread Refugees Welcome   This video (the original footage can be viewed below) does not feature refugees, was not recorded in Spain, and does not depict a recent incident. This footage was actually taken in a cafeteria at Tshwane University of Technology in Pretoria, South Africa in November 2015. At the time, students at several South African Universities were engaged in protests against fee hikes and inadequate funding. The South African Independent Online (IOL) news outlet reported that 16 protesting students at two Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) campuses were arrested for the incident depicted in this video and were released the following day: reported The Gencor Hall, the main exam centre at the South campus, along with the information centre and two security vehicles, were torched. The protests started to take an ugly turn when protesting students vandalised a cafeteria at the South campus. That same day, police arrested 16 students in connection with the violence, but released them a day later. South African History Online provided the context behind that student protest: provided Student protests at public universities and colleges over financial exclusions speak directly to the issue of inadequate governmental and other funding into education in South Africa. An estimated R900-million per annum for student funding is needed for TUT to function as an institution that still works for qualifying students requiring financial aid. NFAS, a loan and bursary scheme the government introduced in 1999 to give financially poor matrics access to university education, provides only a portion of this amount to students who need financial aid at TUT. For example, in 2014, the state scheme funded half the university students that qualified for its loans and bursaries at TUT. NSFAS was still unable to fund an estimated 10 000 students across TUTs campuses who needed and qualified for financial aid in 2014, despite having obtained an additional allocation of R1-billion for that year; of which R270-million was allocated for TUT. In 2015, the situation was further exacerbated as the NSFAS allocation excluded that portion. The 2015 SRC estimated that over 20 000 returning students across the Universitys six campus regions, were excluded that year. Many of these students were funded by NSFAS in 2014, but were left out in 2015, and were not allowed to register without an upfront payment and were also barred from receiving their results without settling their debt. Students at institutions including the Vaal University of Technology, the University of Johannesburg, the University of Venda and the Walter Sisulu University were also facing similar issues around the same time. Academic activities at the university were suspended for the remainder of the school year after the protests turned violent in November 2015. YouTuber Arphalia Meyer contemporaneously posted a series of videos of the protesters looting the campus, with the video that formed the basis of the later viral "Refugees Welcome to Spain" clip being put online on 23 November 2015.  That original video was accompanied by the caption "Security cam footage of the mob looting Kantina, the tuck shop on campus at TUT PTA. It's clear enough that this was premeditated and they are no strangers to it": suspended Arphalia Meyer  This footage was taken at a University in South Africa and shows a group of students vandalizing a cafeteria amidst protests in 2015 against inadequate school funding. It has nothing to do with Spain or refugees, and it was nearly three years old when it was re-captioned and circulated online. South African History Online.  "Student Protests at Tshwane University of Technology -- Timeline."
  Retrieved 16 August 2018.  El Pais.  "'Refugees Welcome,' Reads Sign on Madrid City Hall."
  8 September 2015. Makhetha, Tankiso.  "Two TUT Campuses Shut Down."
  IOL.  24 November 2015.
In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking 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 scammers 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. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. For all the advances since the era of teased-out rocker hair, one thing hasnt changed for Americas average working man: the amount of bacon he brings home. So says Rana Foroohar, a CNN global economic analyst andTimemagazine assistant managing editor (who, by the way,snagged thefirst interviewwith new Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen). Appearing on CNNsThe Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,Foroohar brought up the point during a general discussion about the countrys economic woes. You know, I have to jump in on this because we are living in a time when the corporate share of the overall economic pie is as high as it has been in decades, Foroohar said. Meanwhile, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Foroohars eye-popping statistic about median male worker income is certainly interesting. We wanted to know if it is correct. Comparing 1982-2012 TheU.S. Census Bureauproved a go-to source. The bureaus Septemberreporton income, poverty and health insurance coverage in 2012 contains text and tables outlining historical changes (or lack thereof) in earnings for both men and women. Foroohar referenced median earnings, which experts say is a better measure than the average because the income difference between the countrys rich and working-class earners is stark. In 2012, the latest year for which data is available, the median full-time, year-round male worker earned $49,398. In 1982, exactly 30 years earlier, earnings in 2012 dollars were $48,152. So from 1982 to 2012, there was actually an inflation-adjusted raise of $1,246.But thats more because Foroohar is looking at two years in isolation. Tracking the income of median male workers over time shows that incomes climbed steeply from 1960 to 1970. But the figure has ebbed and flowed and remained mostly stagnant since 1970, dipping as low as $46,841 in 1996 and reaching a high of $51,670 in 1973. (You canview the tableon page 50 of the report.) Point being:You could just as easily widen or shrink Foroohars 30-year window by a few years and find a number that supports her point. Median earnings of the 2012 male worker are down compared to his counterpart 25 years ago (who earned $50,166 in 1987), 35 years ago ($50,480 in 1977) or 40 years ago ($50,074 in 1970). Even though Foroohars window shows a 2.6 percent pay increase between 1982 and 2012, its really pretty close to flat, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. It means that male median earnings increases just 0.085 percent per year (that is, 85 one-thousandths of a percentage point per year), he said. Some say men are even worse off Foroohars larger point, while technically correct and oft-repeated, misses the larger economic picture and is actually too generous, argues Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Greenstone co-authored a2012New York Timespostwith Brookings fellow Adam Looney that presented another way to examine median male wages. Instead of counting only the earnings of men with jobs, as the Census Bureau does, Greenstone factored in all working-age men. Factoring in men without jobs brings down the median income. The fraction of men in the workforce has declined sharply over the last several decades, he wrote, from 94 percent of prime-age men working in 1970 to 81 percent in 2010. It happened as incarceration rates and enrollment in the Social Security disability insurance program increased and labor force participation waned, as well as the wild success of women entering the labor market, he said. His 2012 study found real earnings of median males actually dropped by 19 percent since 1970, he found. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964  nearly a half century ago. The reasons for the trend are complex, Greenstone told us. Yes, there have been sweeping changes in technology, machinery and trade over the last 30 or 40 years that have had some effect. More striking, he said, is that educational attainment among men, which used to climb with each generation, has dropped off. The decline in working is concentrated among the men who have lower levels of education, Greenstone said. Its not concentrated among the college-grad guy who is married to a super successful woman. Michael Saltsman of the conservative Employment Policies Institute also argued the idea of stagnant wages is more controversial than it seems -- to a different end. He cited a 2012study in the National Tax Journalthat analyzed middle-class income from the past three cycles. Instead of using pre-tax income data, the researchers expanded the income definition to include taxes, income transfers and fringe benefits. Middle-class Americans are found to have made substantial gains, and these increases are even larger when including non-cash income, such as the ex-ante value of health insurance, the report says. Meanwhile, the earnings of female workers isnt cited as often as a metric of the economy because their participation in the workforce jumped sharply over the last 50 years. In any case, the 2012 full-time, year-round median female worker earned $37,791, according to census figures. In 1982, when about half as many women were working, median earnings were $29,731. Our ruling Foroohar said, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Federal data for 1982-2012 shows a slight increase, though the numbers show the real value of median male earnings have been in the range of $46,840-$51,670 for about 40 years. We found another point of view that says the real median income has declined significantly once men without jobs are factored in. We also found a broader definition of income that changes the dynamic. Still, Foroohar clearly has a point. We rate her claim Mostly True. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 Liberal comedian Bill Maher made an out-of-this-world comparison to poke a hole in the Republican argument that the estate tax threatens the livelihoods of family farmers. Of 5,000 Americans who paid the estate tax in 2013, 20 farmers paid it, Maher said on his April 17, 2015, show. Twenty-four Americans have been to the moon. More astronauts have been to the moon than farmers who paid the inheritance tax in 2013. There obviously is no relation between the number of farmers paying the estate tax and the number of Americans who went to the moon, but as a point of trivia, Mahers claim is an intriguing one. A reader asked us to do the magic that you do, which is determining whether Mahers point is accurate. One small step for fact-checkers ... Caveat No 1: Maher is using the number of astronauts who have been to the vicinity of the moon, not just the number of moonwalkers. Twelve Americans have walked the moons surface over six Apollo missions, starting with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting an American flag in 1969. (If youre not sure about whether the lunar landing really happened, you wont like this fact-check, but you may enjoy these bona fidemoon misconceptions.) Add another 12 American astronauts who orbited the moon but did not walk on it, and you get  24. NASA chief historian William Barry said the 24 Americans is a solid figure in that it doesnt double count Americans who made more than one lunar trip. There were several astronauts who flew to the Moon and orbited it on one mission and then were lucky enough to go back and land on it on a later mission, Barry said. Jim Lovell, for instance, made two trips to the moon in Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, but he never walked on it. (In this Smithsonian picture, Lovell and his crew emerge from the U.S.S. Iwo Jima after landing the spacecraftApollo 13in the South Pacific.) One giant leap for the truth What Maher calls the inheritance tax and what Republicans call the death tax is more accurately described as the estate tax. Some wealthy families face this tax when they pass on assets (cash, land, homes, stocks, etc.) to heirs after death. Most estates do not owe estate taxes. It affects about 5,500 Americans whose estates exceed the exemption limit of$5.43 million per person. If the estate is worth more than that, an heir could pay a tax rate up to 40 percent on the value of the estate above that limit. Even though it doesnt affect all that many people, it brings in big bucks for the government. Repealing it would cost about $270 billion over the next decade, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. In the week ahead of Mahers April 17 show, House Republicans approveda planto eliminate the estate tax, saying it can prove devastating to families  forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely. So did this tax really affect just 20 farmers in 2013, as Maher said? The number comes from an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Tax Policy Center economists wanted to get an idea of how the tax would affect estates, including those with farm and business assets, in 2013. All of their numbers are estimates based on the centersestate tax model. They defined family farms and businesses as estates having farm or business assets less than $5 million and half of the estate. These farms and businesses had taxable returns and total assets between $5 million and up $10 million. Its a definition that hones in on small farms and business  the most relevant in responding to the myth that many small farms and small businesses must be liquidated to pay estate tax, said Brandon DeBot, a research assistant at the federal fiscal policy division of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Using the Tax Policy Centers model, an estimated 20 small farms and small businesses would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, amounting to a total of $6.9 million of tax with an average tax rate of 4.9 percent. So thats not just small farms, its small farmsandsmall businesses, which might not be a farm. Caveat No. 2: The number of farms and businesses is probably not exactly 20, as it is an estimate rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. That means the number is anywhere from 16-24. Caveat No. 3: Maher talked about family farmers, addressing the Republican argument about the plight of farmers who could lose their livelihood because of the estate tax. But family farms can be big farms, and thats where things get more complicated. Maher set up his comparison by discussing the plight of family farmers, but then later dropped the word family. That one word is important. The Tax Policy Center broadened the scope to include all farm and business estates, regardless of size, with at least half of their value from farm business activity. By that method, 120 farm and business estates would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center fellow who worked on the model. Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies federal tax and budget policy, says the the estate tax has a lot of flaws, but the effect on farmers is just not the right grounds to criticize this tax. Mahers point was strong, he said. In 2001, House Republicans voted to repeal the death tax.New York TimesreporterDavid Cay Johnston scoured1999 IRS filings, phoned the American Farm Bureau Federation, and interviewed farmers in effort to find examples of working farmers who lost their farms because of estate taxes. He found none, writing that the reality of who is bitten by the estate tax is different from the mythology, as the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate. And in 2001, the estate tax wasmore robust than it is now, with a lower exemption level of $675,000 and a higher top tax rate of 55 percent. It is a small number, bottom line, Williams said. Theyre going to be the exception rather than the rule. Our ruling Maher compared 24 American astronauts who have been to the moon to 20 farmers whom he said were the only ones to pay the estate tax. His count for astronauts who have been to the moon is reasonable, counting both American moonwalkers and those who have flown in its orbit during various Apollo missions. The larger point about only 20 farmers paying the estate tax is a little more complicated. A 2013nonpartisan study found 20 small farmsandsmall businesses faced the estate tax in 2013. Maher referred to family farms in setting up his claim. Saying small farms would have been better. And he dropped family in later references. Experts said Maher generally could have been more careful in his wording, but that his bit of trivia largely checks out, as does his point that the estate tax affectsvery few small farmers. We rate his claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2edf78cd-008c-408e-ae35-939322661e70 In early August 2020, Snopes readers asked whether the following meme shared across social media accurately quoted U.S. President Donald Trump's commenting on the United States Postal Service and voting by mail:   This quote appears to be a fabricated one. Although the meme's text states that Trump made the remark on a talk radio show hosted by Fox News personality Sean Hannity on July 30, 2020, Trump wasn't a guest on  Hannity's AM radio talk show  that day. Hannity's AM radio talk show  It's true that Trump has repeatedly disparaged mail-in voting, falsely stating  that voting by mail leads to rampant election fraud (except in Florida). He even appeared to suggest in a tweet, which prompted widespread backlash, that the November 2020 election should be delayed because the widespread use of mail-in ballots during the ongoing pandemic would compromise the results. falsely stating  Florida tweet widespread backlash Some concern has also been expressed that Trump has reduced the effectiveness of the Postal Service with budget cuts, as The New York Times reported: "Fueled by animus for Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and surrounded by advisers who have long called for privatizing the post office, Mr. Trump and his appointees have begun taking cost-cutting steps that appear to have led to slower and less reliable delivery." reduced However, we found no evidence that Trump made the remark in the above-displayed meme. It wasn't posted to his Twitter account or recorded in any statements transcribed by the White House. And Trump was not a guest on the Hannity show on July 30, 2020, so he didn't make the remark there, as suggested by the meme.   These words appear to be someone else's paraphrase of what they assumed Trump was thinking or planning. posted We therefore rate this claim  Lee, Jessica.  "Do Mail-In Ballots Increase Risk of Voter Fraud?"
  Snopes.com.  26 May 2020. Welna, David.  "Citing Election Delay Tweet, Influential Trump Ally Now Demands His Re-Impeachment."
  NPR.  31 July 2020. Shear, Michael D. et al.  "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal System Ahead of Voting."
  The New York Times.  31 July 2020. Freking, Kevin.  "Trump Encourages Mail Voting in Florida But Sues in Nevada."
  The Associated Press.  5 August 2020. A graphic featuring an image of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg next to a quote ostensibly uttered by him about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, referring to the GOP candidate as "con artist" and a "cheat," has been widely circulated on social media:  I have known Trump for decades. We have traveled in the same business circles. He is known among other millionaires as a con artist and among business owners as a cheat out to stiff everyone. The text of this image first started circulating in July 2016, shortly after Bloomberg made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention to endorse Hillary Clinton. Bloomberg issued several remarks critical of Donald Trump during his DNC speech, including referring to his candidacy as a "con" and mocking his business acumen, but he did not say the words attributed to him above. circulating A full transcript of Bloomberg's speech can be found here, while the relevant portion has been reproduced below: here  I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one! Trump says he'll punish manufacturers that move to Mexico or China, but the clothes he sells are made overseas in low-wage factories. He says he wants to put Americans back to work, but he games the US visa system so he can hire temporary foreign workers at low wages. He says he wants to deport 11 million undocumented people, but he seems to have no problem in hiring them. What'd I miss here?! Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy. He wants you to believe that we can solve our biggest problems by deporting Mexicans and shutting out Muslims. He wants you to believe that erecting trade barriers will bring back good jobs. He's wrong on both counts. We can only solve our biggest problems if we come together and embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established right here in Philadelphia, which permitted our ancestors to create the great American exceptionalism that all of us now enjoy. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. And we can only create good jobs if we make smarter investments in infrastructure and do more to support small businesses. Not stiff them. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe. The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can't afford to make that choice. Nonetheless, some newspapers misquoted Bloomberg and reported that he had referred to Trump as a "con artist": misquoted As Michael Bloomberg said perfectly about Trump during his speech at the Democratic convention in July: Im a New Yorker  and I know a con artist when I see one. It was Florida senator Marco Rubio who referred to Trump (more than once) as a "con artist" during the campaign for the Republican nomination: referred We are so excited about what lies ahead for our campaign, Rubio said. You see, just five days ago, we began to unmask the true nature of the front-runner so far in this race. Five days ago, we began to explain to the American people that Donald Trump is a con artist. Two weeks from tonight right here in Florida we are going to send a message loud and clear, Rubio said. We are going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan and the presidency of the United States will never be held by a con artist. High-speed rail has wedged itself into the 2018 campaign for California governor, splitting the current top two Democrats in the race. Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project. Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. He added that Newsom was revising his positions when the winds blow in his direction. Given the key decisions Californias next governor will need to make on high-speed rail, we wanted to know whether Newsom has really shifted this much in his support for the massive project. We hopped aboard for a fact-check. Background on the bullet train In 2008, California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to jump-start the development of a high-speed rail network. Plans called for trains to zip across the state at 200 miles per hour, initially connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles and eventually extending the system to Sacramento and San Diego. Cost estimates for the project, however, have see-sawed from an initial $33 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion. The project has also fallen far behind schedule with construction limited to a small segment in the Central Valley. We asked Villaraigosas campaign for evidence of Newsoms shifting positions. As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support. We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle. In February 2014, however, Newsom was asked by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro:Are you pro or against the train, especially now that the California public, which approved the train in the first place, has reneged and no longer likes the train? Newsom responded:I think Im where the public was and is. Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money. Newsom went on to tell Shapiro:We dont have the federal dollars we were hoping for ... the private sector hasnt stepped up. Shapiro then asked:If you had your druthers, Gavin, would you kill the thing? Newsom responded:I would take the dollars and redirect it to other, more pressing infrastructure needs. I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly. Most are now saying it privately. This exchange gave many the impression Newsom had backed away from the project. Newsom did not clarify in the interview what kind of funds should be redirected. In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project. AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years. In this Feb. 26, 2016, file photo, the supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Newsoms response Dan Newman, Newsoms campaign spokesman, described Villaraigosas claim about shifting positions this way: The statement is extremely misleading at best, he said in an email. Villaraigosa is simply trying to score political points with a disingenuous cheap shot, by blithely ignoring the fact that the project being discussed today is significantly different than what voters supported in 2008. The spokesman said Newsom has never opposed high-speed rail. Instead, Newsom publicly scrutinized the projects business plan when cost estimates ballooned to nearly $100 billion and questioned Gov. Jerry Browns plans to use cap and trade funds for it, the spokesman said. Scrutinizing the business plan is very different from opposing (high-speed rail), Newman added. He said Newsoms comment in the 2014 radio interview about redirecting money away from the project was referring to redirecting cap and trade money away from it, not the state bond money passed by voters. He said a statement from Newsoms office in March 2014 clarifies Newsoms consistent support even as he questioned the projects finances: The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014. He added that Newsoms statements of support in more recent years are also consistent with previous comments. Experts we spoke with were split on the claim. Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right. I don't think it's a fair assessment, the professor said in an email.Newsom came out several years ago with serious doubts about the high speed rail, but I don't think he's ever said definitely he would stop the program if he became governor. Maybe he fluctuates from lukewarm to a soft no, but that's not the same as consistently changing his opinion. Key to our assessment, however, was the 2014 radio interview and Newsoms own admission that he agreed with the growing public sentiment that opposed the train at that time. We spoke with one more expert. Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project. He declined to comment about whether he believed Newsom had definitely switched his stance on high speed rail. Thompson said, however, that redirecting cap and trade money away from the project in 2014, as Newsom suggested doing, would have made the projects future a lot more difficult. Asked whether such a move would have effectively killed the project, Thompson said: I dont know what other source of money they would have found. He described cap and trade money as the key revenue source for the project both then and now, given the restrictions on other sources, including the bond funds. Our rating Villaraigosa claimed Newsom has essentially flip-flopped in his support for Californias high-speed rail, saying he was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult. A spokesman for Newsoms campaign defended the candidates stance, saying Newsom has scrutinized project costs as they have soared beyond initial estimates. He said, however, that Newsom has never turned his back on high-speed rail. We found Villaraigosa pointed to key evidence, particularly the 2014 radio interview, that shows Newsoms stance had shifted, at least for that moment in time. In fairness to Newsom, hes consistently expressed concern that the project no longer represents what voters supported in 2008 and that his main worry was its cost. Villaraigosas statement could have used this additional information. We rate his claim 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. With a rise of interest in "green energy" fueling the expansion of automobile companies such as Tesla, one might assume that the electric car is a relatively recent invention. A photograph purportedly showing an electric vehicle from 1905, however, suggests otherwise: Charging an electric car, 1905. Follow us on Instagram https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn  History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) July 10, 2017 July 10, 2017  This is a genuine photograph of an electric car charging in the early 1900s. However, according to the Library of Congress, this picture was taken several years later than claimed  in 1919, not 1905  and shows a Detroit Electric charging up between stops on a promotional tour between Seattle and Mt. Ranier in August 1919: Library of Congress tour Mt. Ranier The plugged-in car featured in the photo which initially caught my eye was a Detroit Electric, a vehicle produced by the Anderson Electric Car Company from 1907 to 1939. The photo is part of a group of promotional images showing the auto on a trip from Seattle to Mount Rainier. Other photographs from the group show the car wending its way through the mountains of Washington. Here are two more images showing this early electric car on its first promotional tour: images   The photographs also don't show the world's first electric car, just an early one; London inventor Thomas Parker claimed to have produced an electric powered vehicle as early as 1884. Here's a photograph of Parker in one of his earlier models: photograph   Sitting aboard is Thomas Parker, who was responsible for innovations such as electrifying the London Underground, overhead tramways in Liverpool and Birmingham, and the smokeless fuel coalite. Stoner, Julie.  "Caught Our Eyes: Its Electric!"
  The Library of Congress.  12 April 2017. The Telegraph.  "World's First Electric Car Built by Victorian Inventor in 1884."
  24 April 2009. As U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy suffered numerousvote losses before being elected House speaker by a deeply divided Republican party, many noticed a particular moment with Rep. GeorgeSantos, whowas already under fire for fabricating much of his life story while campaigning for office. On Jan. 5, 2023, on the third day of voting for House speaker, Santos was seen flashing a signal with his left hand that many interpreted as being the "white power" sign. numerous Santos under fire  A number of our readers sent us messages asking if Santos indeed flashed the "white power" signal, which looks like an "Okay" sign defined by the forefinger and thumb making a circle shape with the remaining three fingers splayed out. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the sign was adopted "first by white nationalists, and then by 4chan trolls intent on 'triggering the libs'." Numerous alt-right figures have adopted this symbol over the years, but there are also many instances where innocuous hand gestures were incorrectly interpreted in this way. We have debunked such instances, as well. Southern Poverty Law Center debunked So did Santos intend to use such a symbol? In the C-SPAN video below he is standing with his arms folded, and when it is his turn to vote, he raises his right hand to vote for McCarthy, his left still folded under his chest with the sign visible (watch the5:53:30 mark).It appeared on numerous re-watches that he could conceivably have just been holding his left hand that way, and ended up waving his right hand instead of the left. He walked away very quickly after voting, putting both his hands down to his sides.  Voting for House speaker took around four days and numerous attempts, during which time Santos signaled his support more than once. The photograph below shows Santos casting his vote on Jan. 4, 2023, where he is not using the symbol. Jan. 4, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Jan. 5, 2023, he was seen casting his vote again, this time with his left hand making an "Okay" sign. Jan. 5, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) In both instances, he is clearly intending to cast a vote. In the second instance, we do not know for certain if he is making a white power signal with his left hand. We have reached out to a member of his team, but so far Santos has madeno comment on this. made This did not stop Democrats from criticizing him for making the hand gesture. U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from New York, said: Democrats said    MSNBC host Joy Reid addressed this with the right-leaning media outlet The Bulwark's Tim Miller, saying that Santos appeared to "throw the white-power sign." addressed Miller in turn responded "[...]he might have been holding his fingers together. There's plenty of bad things about George Santos without me reading into his body language." After McCarthy was finally elected as House speaker on Jan. 7, 2023, Santos was also sworn into office. In a statement, Santos said: "Now is the time to put political differences aside, stop the finger pointing, and start delivering results. The work of Congress is not about my personal life, this is about delivering results for my constituents, finding bipartisan solutions, and reversing abysmal policies that have caused some of the worst inflation and crime in our nation's history." said We cannot determine Santos' intentions without hearing from Santos directly, and even then he has shown in the past that his word cannot fully be trusted. As such we rate this claim as "Unproven." Evon, Dan. "Do Pics Show Blackburn Flashing 'White Power Sign' in US Senate?" Snopes, 11 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackburn-white-power/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "George Santos Sworn into Office after Selection of House Speaker." News 12 - The Bronx, 7 Jan. 2023. https://bronx.news12.com/george-santos-sworn-into-office-after-selection-of-house-speaker. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Did George Santos' Website Incorrectly Announce He Was Sworn in to US House?" Snopes, 4 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-santos-sworn-into-house-error/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "Is That an OK Sign? A White Power Symbol? Or Just a Right-Wing Troll?" Southern Poverty Law Center, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Shoaib, Alia. "George Santos Accused of Flashing White-Power Symbol during House Speaker Vote." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-white-power-symbol-speaker-vote-2023-1. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Sprunt, Barbara, and Susan Davis. "Kevin McCarthy Is Elected House Speaker after 15 Votes and Days of Negotiations." NPR, 7 Jan. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.- Elect George Santos Casts His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-casts-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454230622. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.-Elect George Santos Cast His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-cast-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454474088. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Texas women are paid less than men, Wendy Davis stresses. In a March 10, 2014,tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that didnt make it into law. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: While@GregAbbott_TXdodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas. Well leave it to Abbott and Davis to debate the 2013 measure vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry. But we wondered: Are Texas women still paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man? We found that pay gaps persist, though comparisons can be dicey. Comparing women and men doing 'same' job In August 2013, werated as Mostly Falsea related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job. Thats not necessarily correct for individuals doing the same job. In 2010, $8,355 was the general gap between median salaries of full-time working Texas men and women, according to federal estimates, and the 2012 gap was nearly $500 less than that. Significantly, the research cited by Davis did not drill down to salaries for men and women doing the same jobs. In contrast, 2013 survey results indicated a $2,000 gap between the median pay for Texas men and women with comparable professional experiences holding the same or similar jobs. Annual U.S. Census Bureau surveys But Davis recent 82 cents claim wasnt specific to people doing the same jobs. Responding to our request for back-up information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acua pointed us to an April 2013fact sheetfrom the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues. The sheet opens: In Texas, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,301 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $43,160 per year. This means that women in Texas are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $7,859 between men and women who work full time in the state. That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S Census Bureau and abureau chartindicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex by work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnerships fact sheet. Latest available estimate Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the2012 ACSwere posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453  or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time. Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureaus surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in2006,2009and2010, 79 cents in2007and 78 cents in2008. Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureaus 2012 survey. Theresulting chartindicated a median wage for full-time working men of--$45,166 for men, $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated, civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureauchartsuggests, the comparable figure was 81 cents. Kliner told us the partnership relies on bureau estimates not limited to civilian workers because it believes that delivers a more complete view of the workforce. It is also the chart that has been used historically, so it allows for comparisons over time, she wrote. Upshot: The latest available estimate is that Texas women working full time earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by such men in 2012. That was a penny better than in one of the previous six years, the same or a penny less than the result in four of the years and three cents less than the 82 cents estimated for 2011 and relied upon by Davis. Experts note caveats Experts we queried agreed with our math while offering caveats. By email, Lloyd Potter, the state demographer, pointed out that any focus on earnings for full-time workers leaves out part-time workers. Women, he wrote, are more likely to be employed part-time. Still, Potter said, if we just looked at part-time workers, again, youd probably find women earn less. In our 2013 fact check, we noted theres a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime,that should translate into higher earnings for them -- because they are paid more, or because their longer hours lead to more job success -- and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. Thats where sexism comes in, some say. Finally, Potter said, the differential quoted probably is not adjusted for educational attainment or work experience. It is not. If it were, wed probably find the differential would shrink (toward equality) as women tend to have less work experience than men though educational attainment is fairly comparable among adults across sex. Austin economist Stuart Greenfield similarly said by email: In the aggregate, Sen. Davis statement is absolutely, positively correct, though he said that when one controls for work experience, education, and other factors, the earnings differential is reduced. National comparisons Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statisticspress releasesummarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of womens to mens earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years the Texas womens to mens earnings ratio has declined 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001. According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. (For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. We asked Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to speak to why this was so. See herreply here.) Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on programs serving low-income Texans, said of the 79-cent pay difference estimate suggested by the 2012 survey: This is how the wage gap is usually calculated. If you expand who youre looking at to include all employed individuals (whether or not they work full-time or year-round), women earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns, Lee said by email. Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn,The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry and union status between the genders. According to the paper, major reasons for such wage gaps include: Occupational and industry category (49% of the reason) Lee said that many women are concentrated in particular occupations. Occupations that are heavily female, such as health care support or personal care and service occupations, tend to pay low wages, she said. For example, home health aides in Texas, who are largely female, earn on average $17,430 per year, Lee said, while women also represent 63% of workers earning minimum-wage or less in Texas. When you break down earnings data by occupation, she said, this gap persists in almost all occupations. Labor Force Experience (10.5%) A portion of the gap is explained by factors related to work experience, such as interruptions in work for child care, Lee said. Unexplained (41%) Lee said a large portion of the gap is unexplained by womens choices. This could be because of conscious or unconscious biases (research shows this is particularly acute against mothers), Lee wrote, while other research shows that different attitudes around wage negotiations may contribute to the gender wage gap. Lee added: A lot of people see occupational choices and time off from work as womens choices. And while this is true, I think its important to realize that the choices we make are heavily influenced by the environment in which we make choices, the choices that are available, and how those choices are presented. So while its true that more women work in low-wage jobs, there may be reasons why women dont choose to work in some higher-wage occupations. Similarly, mothers may choose to take time off work to care for young children, but perhaps they wouldnt if child care were more available or affordable. Our ruling Davis said that Texas women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in the state. Her figure, based on a 2011 federal survey, reflects median earnings for adults who worked full time in the past 12 months, leaving out part-time workers. Its also outdated in that according to the latest available survey, taken in 2012, Texas women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men (again working full time in the past 12 months), less than what Davis said. We rate this claim 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.