Curves and organizations supporting the sanctity of life.
Claim:  Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins:   With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who   have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something  right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003  the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years.  Moreover, the  Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups"  though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million  10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income  to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday  'What's wrong with curves?'  stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain.  Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate.  The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman.  The largest of the pledges  $3.75 million over five years  goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said.  The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations.  The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth.  The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization.  In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.  The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes  Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements.  Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes.  Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information:     Curves International web site  Last updated:  19 November 2006    Sources:   Carroll, Jon.  "Jon Carroll."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  20 April 2004  (p. E12).    Chan, Vera H-C.  "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women."   San Jose Mercury News.  16 April 2004.    Kennedy, John W.  "Rolling with the Curves."   Today's Christian.  January 2004  (p. 30).    Lawrence, Elana.  "Curves, Without Frills."   The Washington Post.  27 May 2003  (p. F1).    Reimer, Susan.  "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves."   The Baltimore Sun.  8 February 2004  (p. N1).    Rosen, Ruth.  "What's Wrong With Curves?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  29 April 2004  (p. B9).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   4 May 2004  (p. A2).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   13 May 2004  (p. A2).
In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day." Donald Trump   In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts). New York Times story previously reported The April 3 Times report details the experience of Trump donor Stacy Blatt, a retiree who was in hospice care, suffering from cancer, when he discovered his bank account depleted from those recurring donations. Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaughs dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trumps campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution  federal records show it was his first ever  quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge  until Mr. Blatts bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud. Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt. pre-checked box As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly. asking donors As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this: looked like this   As the pre-checked box evolved, the result was an increase in refunds issued to donors who had missed the finer print in the box that allowed the refunds to be weekly recurring. The refunds issued by the Trump campaign outpaced and dwarfed the $21 million in refunds issued by his political rival, now-U.S. President Joe Biden. The effect can be seen in a graph posted by Shane Goldmacher, the Times report's author:  The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive. Internet Archive A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times. found on OpenSecrets.org We sent emails to WinRed and the Trump campaign seeking comment, but didn't get an answer in time for publication. We will update if we do. But we note that in their public statements responding to the Times story that neither Trump nor WinRed refute the financial figures or facts laid out by the Times. Instead, the stance taken by both WinRed and Trump is that the Times' report was unfairly negative about their approach to fundraising. In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted. called tweeted In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low: statement We learned from liberal ActBlue  and now were better than they are! In fact, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over, and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than 1% of total online donations, a very low number. This is done by Dems also The Times story reported that WinRed "typically granted [refunds] to avoid more costly formal disputes." It also pointed out that while WinRed is a for-profit company, ActBlue is a non-profit organization. As such, WinRed "makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given. WinRed was paid more than $118 million from federal committees the last election cycle; even after paying credit card fees and expenses like payroll and rent, the profits are believed to be significant." We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue: was $38.08 ActBlue said in a statement that it had begun to phase out prechecked recurring boxes unless groups were explicitly asking for recurring contributions. Some prominent Democratic groups, including both congressional campaign committees, continue to precheck recurring boxes regardless of that guidance. Still, Democratic refund rates were only a small fraction of the Trump campaigns last year. On April 7, 2021, Timothy Miller, a writer for the political news site The Bulwark, tweeted that he received a fundraising text from the National Republican Congressional Committee with a similar, pre-checked fundraising box:  Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points. widespread voter fraud won As controversy raged over racially motivated violence and law enforcement policies in the United States, a persistent rumor regarding the origins of 21st-century policing appeared online. It showed up, as such things tend to do, in meme form:   But how accurate is this? And where did the concept of police as de facto executors of justice (rather than peacekeepers) originate? Law enforcement has always existed in one form or another. The first constables (from the Roman comes stabuli, or "head of the stables") with duties very similar to today's sheriffs, were around at least since the 9th century, and traveled to the Americas from Europe to supplant the systems that existed there at the time in the 1600s. The Encyclopedia of Police Science delves into the history of constables in the colonies:  history In the American colonies the constable was the first law enforcement officer. His duties varied from place to place according to the needs of the people he served. Usually, the constable sealed weights and measures, surveyed land, announced marriages, and executed all warrants. Additionally, he meted out physical punishments and kept the peace.  The informal and communal system known as "the Watch" worked (more or less efficiently) on a volunteer basis in the early colonies; there were also private policing systems for hire that functioned on a for-profit basis. As populations grew, so did demands for more functional system of policing towns and cities. Volunteers would often show up to their posts drunk or not at all, and the systems were disorganized or hopelessly corrupt.  posts According to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University, a centralized, bureaucratic police system did not emerge until well into the 1800s, but was quickly adopted by cities around the country: Gary Potter It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. These "modern police" organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980). More than a hundred years earlier, in 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the fledgling United States' first slave patrol. The patrol consisted of roving bands of armed white citizens who would stop, question, and punish slaves caught without a permit to travel. They were civil organizations, controlled and maintained by county courts. The way the patrols were organized and maintained provided a later framework for preventive (rather than reactive) community policing, particularly in the South:  courts Policing had always been a reactive enterprise, occurring only in response to a specific criminal act. Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the "dangerous classes" began to emphasize preventative crime control. The presence of police, authorized to use force, could stop crime before it started by subjecting everyone to surveillance and observation. The concept of the police patrol as a preventative control mechanism routinized the insertion of police into the normal daily events of everyone's life, a previously unknown and highly feared concept in both England and the United States (Parks 1976). Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as "collective bargaining by riot") and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States' restive economic underclasses.  labor strikes Eric Hobsbawm destruction In fact, police duties since the 1800s can be easily traced along the ebb and flow of political pressures as well as social issues:  issues In 1822, for example, Charleston, South Carolina, experienced a slave insurrection panic, caused by a supposed plot of slaves and free blacks to seize the city. In response, the State legislature passed the Negro Seamen's Act, requiring free black seamen to remain on board their vessels while in Carolina harbors. If they dared to leave their ships, the police were instructed to arrest them and sell them into slavery unless they were redeemed by the ship's master.  Similarly, patrols such as the Mounted Guards (forerunners to what eventually became the Border Patrol) were put in place to maintain minority quotas, among other things:  minority quotas Mounted watchmen of the U.S. Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called Mounted Guards, operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than seventy-five, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration. In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of Mounted Guards, often referred to as Mounted Inspectors. Most rode on horseback, but a few operated cars and even boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws. Modern law enforcement evolved out of complex brew of a larger population, shifting sociopolitical class boundaries, and other external issues (such as the labor pressures that created an unhappy underclass) and a shift in the way policing was regarded by business owners and the population at large: proactive rather than reactive.  However, it is important to note that "the police" do not consist of a homogenous block of the American population, and while the early days of modern-day police forces are undeniable and under-covered facets of its history, the focus and perspective of policing is a complicated and fraught subject. It would be a mistake to assume that police in 2016 are the same as police in the 1870s, and to conclude that the profile of law enforcement in the United States  and around the world  has not changed throughout its existence. It would also be a mistake to assume that law enforcement cannot or will not be changed again in response to popular pressure, given that its focus has varied dramatically since its inception.  Greene, Jack R. (ed.)
 The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Third Edition.   Routledge: New York. 2007. Harring, Sidney L., and McMullin, Lorraine M.  "TheBuffalo Police18721900: Labor Unrest, Political Power and the Creation of the Police Institution."
 Crime and Social Justice 4: 5-14. 1975. Kelling, George L. and Moore, Mark H.  "The Evolving Strategy of Policing."
 National Institute of Justice.  November 1988.
  Potter, Gary. "The History of Policing in the United States, Parts 1-6."
  Eastern Kentucky University, Police Studies Online.  July 2013. Williams, Hubert and Murphy, Patrick V.  "The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View."  National Institute of Justice. January 1990. On 30 September 2016, the official-looking Tribunist.com web site published an article reporting that a backlogged Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital morgue in Chicago had left the remains of deceased veterans scandalously "stacked to capacity at times": article The latest scandal to break paints another bleak picture. A whistle-blower at an Illinois VA hospital has leaked news that bodies of dead veterans have been left unclaimed in the morgue for up to two months ... The level of decay was so pronounced that at least one of the bodies had liquefied. When the staff tried to remove it, the body-bag burst. Complaints were lodged with the VAs inspector general last month about the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospitals handling of cadavers. In some cases, veterans families had not claimed the bodies. The complaint names Christopher Wirtjes, chief of Patient Administrative Services. The Chief of PAS has the funds available, the complaint reads, yet has no sense of urgency to lay the veteran to rest. ... Some veterans remains have been left in our hospital morgue for 45 days or more until they are stacked to capacity at times, reads the complaint. Kirk has taken his concerns to VA Secretary Bob McDonald. Wirtjes has been under scrutiny before. The Office of Special Counsel found Wirtjes had devised a secret wait list that was exposed in 2014. The Tribunist site is not (as implied) tied to a major newspaper such as the Chicago Tribune, and the image appended to their article was an unrelated photograph from 2010 that had nothing to do with VA burial backlogs and misleadingly suggested that claims about dozens of rotting veterans' corpses stacked on shelves awaiting burial or release in the Chicago VA morgue had been photographically documented: 2010  The claim wasn't entirely fabricated, however. On 26 September 2016 WBBM-TV reported on allegations that the burial of two unclaimed bodies at a VA morgue in Chicago had been delayed: reported The Department of Veterans Affairs investigated the claims echoed by WBBM and the Tribunist and maintained that although some isolated veteran burial issues may have occurred in Chicago, "allegations related to consistent problems with dignified and timely burials [are] unsubstantiated": Internal emails reveal at least two unclaimed vets sat inside the morgue for at least 30 days this summer, allowing the bodies to badly decompose. The VA said an investigation continues but signaled it has not uncovered any widespread problem. We take whistleblower allegations very seriously and absolutely agree that all of our veterans deserve dignity and respect, in life and in death. While our investigation into this matter is still ongoing, we have found allegations related to consistent problems with dignified and timely burials to be unsubstantiated. However, we have taken this opportunity to review our policies and procedures and are currently working to improve them, a spokesperson said. Claims about the VA morgue in Chicago so far remain localized and have to do with the burial of two veterans whose bodies were left unclaimed by relatives. We contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs, and a spokesperson told us that the morgue had a capacity of nine and currently held two decedents (neither of whom had been there for more than eight days):  Honoring the men and women who nobly served our nation  in both life and death  is a solemn obligation the Department of Veterans Affairs takes seriously. Consequently, when allegations surfaced that some Veterans who succumbed to illness under the care of Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital may not have been buried in a timely manner, an immediate investigation was launched. While that investigation is ongoing, preliminary results reveal no evidence of lack of timely final care. Staff at Hines VA Hospital conducted a fact-finding investigation that shows over the last two years, the vast majority  more than 95 percent  of Veterans remains are being respectfully handled within seven days, and more than 99 percent within 30 days. Additionally, VAs Office of Medical Inspector (OMI) spent significant time at the facility interviewing employees and reviewing related materials. And while we are awaiting OMIs final report, we remain confident that our Veterans have been receiving dignified and timely burials. While rare, there have been exceptions in which decisions and requests by next of kin created delays. It is in this area where Hines has already begun improving its policies and procedures to determine when to declare a Veterans remains as unclaimed and how to ensure more timely burials for these exceptions. Once a final report from OMI is complete, the VA will take additional actions as appropriate. WBBM-TV.  "Bodies of Unclaimed Veterans Languish At Hines VA Hospital, Whistleblower Claims."
  26 September 2016. Chris Christie has spent months hammering home how high New Jerseys spending was when his gubernatorial challenger Barbara Buono chaired a Senate budget panel a few years ago. Now Buono, a Democratic state senator from Metuchen, is taking her shot at spending under Christie. Buono made her move at a June 26 Senate budget hearing when she spoke against Christies $32.9 billion budget for fiscal year 2014. The Legislature approved the plan that afternoon and Christie signed it two days later. Buono noted in her speech that the fiscal year 2009 budget crafted on her watch, when she chaired the Senates Budget and Appropriations Committee, spent less than whats been approved for fiscal year 2014. We wondered if that was true, especially since Christie has frequently criticized spending levels when Buono helmed the budget panel, particularly for fiscal year 2008. But in this case, Buonos claim about higher spending in Christies just-approved budget is accurate. Lets review the numbers. Patrick Giordano, Buonos chief of staff, said in an e-mail that Buonos figures were confirmed by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services. We reviewed an e-mail sent by David J. Rosen, the OLS budget and finance officer, to Giordano, and then confirmed the data separately with Rosen. The result? Spending in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations act was $32.86 billion, compared with $32.97 billion for the fiscal year 2014 spending plan, Rosen wrote to Giordano. Thats a difference of $108,491,000  or one-third of 1 percent. So, Buonos claim is correct: spending for the fiscal year 2014 budget is higher than fiscal year 2009. For context, lets also look at spending under the fiscal year 2008 budget  the other spending plan that Buono helped craft during her chairmanship of the Senate budget panel. Buono referenced both budgets during her speech on the Senate floor. Former Gov. Jon Corzine had final approval of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 budgets. Now lets look at spending for every fiscal year since 2008: FISCAL YEAR TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FY2008 $33.47 billion FY2009 $32.86 billion FY2010 $28.99 billion FY2011 $28.36 billion FY2012 $29.69 billion FY2013 $31.65 billion FY2014 $32.97 billion Sources: New Jersey Office of Legislative Services Summary Of Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2008-2014  So state spending dropped from fiscal year 2008 to 2009, but state spending has increased in each of Christies budgets. Its worth noting that the recession had a major impact on decreased spending from 2008 to 20009. The National Bureau of Economic Research has defined the recession as beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009. New Jersey Senate Republicans spokesman Ben Sparks did not respond to our request for comment. Our ruling  Buono said during a speech on the Senate floor about the fiscal year 2014 budget that its spending level is higher than spending under the fiscal year 2009 budget. Buono chaired the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee when the 2009 plan was drafted and ultimately approved by Corzine. The OLS confirmed Buonos claim, noting that spending for fiscal year 2009 was $32.86 billion, compared with $32.97 billion for fiscal year 2014. We rate Buonos claim True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. One of Gov. Scott Walker's talking points -- a claim about the size of Wisconsins budget stabilization fund -- is striking in seemingly contradictory ways. Here is how Walker phrased the claim Aug. 3, 2015 at a presidential candidateforumin New Hampshire: Our rainy day fund's 165 times bigger than when we first took office. On one hand, 165 times sounds like a huge increase. On the other, what was the size of the fund if it could be made 165 times larger? So let's dig in a little. To back Walker's claim, the governor's office cited two state reports. They show that the so-called rainy day fund was$1.68 millionwhen Walker took office and now is$280 million. That's more than 165 times bigger. Some history The Wisconsin Legislaturecreatedthe budget stabilization fund with a 1985law.No significant depositswere made during the first 20 years of the funds existence, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the states budget scorekeeper. But the 2001-03 state budget added a requirement that whenever the state budget runs a surplus, 50 percent of the surplus must be transferred to the fund. So, a governor is required to put money in the rainy day fund whenever there is a surplus; it's not a voluntary act. At the same time, a governor can take some credit for there being a surplus in the first place. There have beenthree depositsto the rainy day fund as a result of budget surpluses since Walker took office in January 2011: Fall 2011:$15 million. That was a result of a surplus in the final budget of Walkers predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. (The end of that budget, it should be noted, came at the beginning of Walker's term. So, adjustments and actions in the final six months under Walker helped lead to the surplus.) Fall 2012:$109 million. While that was the largest deposit to the fund in state history at the time, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnoted, it was only enough to run state government for about three days. Fall 2013:$153 million. Those deposits, plus interest earned, put the total in the rainy day fund at $280 million. In 2014, with another surplus projected, Walker proposed a combination of tax cuts and adding another $117 million to the rainy day fund. But the tax-cutlegislationhe later signed suspended the required contributions to the fund for the 2013-15 biennium. (The state's fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30.) Had the requirement remained in effect, it would have meant another$113 millionin the rainy day fund. Walker instead used the money instead to help cut taxes. Still, theres no question the fund has grown significantly under Walker. Our rating Walker said Wisconsins rainy day fund is 165 times bigger than when we first took office. The $280 million currently in the budget stabilization fund is 165 times larger than the $1.68 million when Walker took office. Walker signed a tax cut law in 2014 that contained a provision voiding a requirement that would have put another $113 million into the fund. But that doesnt change how much larger the fund is.. We rate Walkers statement True. (Editor's note:After this item was published, a spokeswoman for Walker's gubernatorial office noted that the budget that resulted in the Fall 2001 contribution overlapped with Walker's time in office. The item has been adjusted to reflect that. It does not change the rating.) On his first day in office, President Joe Biden put the final nail in the coffin of the Keystone XL pipeline when he revoked its construction permitvia an executive order. Several months later in June 2021, TC Energy Corporationannounced the terminationof the project, bringing an end to more than a decade of debate and legislative back-and-forth on it. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an extension to the Keystone pipeline, an already existing structure that brings tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to storage and distribution facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma and eventually to refineries in Texas. The extension would have boosted this by carrying an additional 830,000 barrels per day from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. Environmental activists, Indigenous communities and climate change experts hailed Bidens decision to cancel the pipeline, which could have damaged sacred sites, caused pollution and water contamination, imperiled wildlife and dramatically contributed to carbon emissions. But the decision was criticized heavily by many Republicans, includingU.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin,former Vice President Mike Penceand  most recently  Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels, who had a personal stake in it all. On June 23, 2022, Michelstweeted: My company was building the Keystone Pipeline when Biden canceled it. Both he and Tony Evers are making us all pay the price. I'll stand by Wisconsinites and ensure you keep more of your hard-earned dollars as your next governor. He made another claim in a video posted with the tweet: Biden killed hundreds of jobs, sent gas prices way up, making everything more expensive. We rated thatMostly False. Michels is the co-owner of Michels Corporation, an energy and infrastructure contractor headquartered in Brownsville, Wisconsin, with locations across the United States and Canada Was Michels Corp. building the Keystone XL pipeline when Biden canceled it? In an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, TC Energy confirmed that Michels Corp. had been awarded a significant construction scope on the Keystone XL pipeline for both the pipeline and facilities. Michels Corp. provided more details in an email: Michels Pipeline, a Division of Michels Corporation, received a contract related to the Keystone XL pipeline to construct pumping stations. Michels Canada Co. received another contract in Canada to help build the mainline pipeline of the Keystone XL pipeline. According to apost on Michels Corp.'s websitefrom September 2020, Michels Corp. was awarded a contract from TC Energy to construct eight pump stations for the pipeline in Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas. Pump stations are facilities along a pipeline that maintain the flow and pressure of oil as it's being transported. They were one type of ancillary facility required for the Keystone XL project, which would have traversed through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. Oklahoma and Texas, however, are part of the existing Keystone pipeline structure, so some of the pump stations Michels Corp. was constructing may not have been for the Keystone XL pipeline. The post said that construction on the eight pump stations started in late June 2020 and was scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2021. It also said the company would employ more than 350 workers at peak construction. According to a June 2020post on Michels Canadas website, Michels Canada was awarded a contract from TC Energy to construct approximately 260 kilometers (about 162 miles) of the pipeline in Alberta. ATC Energy fact sheetabout the Canadian portion of the pipeline said it would be approximately 530 kilometers (about 329 miles) from Hardisty, Alberta, to Monchy, Saskatchewan. So Michels Canada would have constructed about half of the Canadian portion of the pipeline. The full pipeline was to run around 1,200 miles. So, Michels company was clearly a significant part of building the pipeline, but as stated readers might think it was the primary  or even sole  contractor. The post said that Michels Canada was projected to hire 1,000 workers each year of the two-year construction period, which was scheduled to begin the summer of 2020 near Oyen, Alberta, and finish in the spring of 2022 near Hardisty, Alberta. At the time Biden canceled the permit for the pipeline, on Jan. 20, 2021, Michels Corp.s construction of eight pump stations in the U.S. was likely nearing completion. Michels Canadas construction of its segment of the pipelines Canadian portion was likely about one-third complete. According to Reuters, only about 8% of the planned Keystone XL pipeline had been built by the time President Biden canceled the permit. In a tweet, Michels claimed his company was building the Keystone Pipeline when Biden canceled it. The way it was stated could leave readers thinking his company was fully responsible for the pipeline. And some of the pump stations his campaign and company cited apparently are tied to the existing portion of the pipeline. So, there is a lack of precision there. But Michels is right that his company had a significant role in the pipeline project. We rate the claim Mostly True. The communications office of theNational Republican Congressional Committeeisnt letting up on Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. Its recently peppered him with criticism over the sequester and President Barack Obamas health care overhaul. This time, the issue is construction of a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refinement. A May 23, 2013, press release targeted Schrader for voting againstH.R. 3, a bill that would allow TransCanada tostart building the Keystone XL Pipelinewithout approval from President Barack Obama. Specifically, the legislation skips further environmental review and removes barriers to construction. With nearly 75 percent of Americans supportive of the construction of the pipeline, Schrader needs to explain to Oregon families why he voted against this needed project, the release states. Three-quarters of Americans want this project to happen? We know surveys can sometimes use scurrilous, squirrelly language, so we thought wed take a look-see. Plus, while Schrader is a veterinarian who loves animals, the man is no tree-hugging environmentalist. Does he oppose construction? Lets tackle the 75 percent statistic first. The NRCC relies on a survey conducted byNanos Researchthat was the subject of an April 2013 news report in the Wall Street Journal. Heres the survey question: Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline between Canada and the U.S., do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the US/Canadian government approving the project? Of Americans, 52 percent said they support the project and 22 percent said they somewhat support it. Nanos, a respected independent polling firm, isnt the only one to find that a majority of respondents in the United States support construction. An April 2013Pew Research poll found 66 percent in favorwith 23 percent opposed. The poll found broader support among Republicans and independents; Democrats are more divided. We checked with Daniel Kessler, amedia campaigner with 350.org, which opposes Keystone. The Nanos polling question looked sound to him, although he wanted to remind readers thatother surveys show high support for clean energy alternativesand efforts to combat global warming. Now, lets address the second part of the statement. As we stated earlier, H.R. 3 eliminates the need for White House approval to start the project. Its undisputed that Schrader voted against the bill. Nineteen House Democrats joined majority Republicans to send the bill to the Senate, where it sits. No House Democrat from Oregon voted for the legislation. In fact, theNRCC targeted a number of Democrats with the same press release, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.  A spokesman for Schrader said the congressman supports construction in principle, just not the way Republicans are going about it. To say that he does not support the construction on the pipeline is false, wrote spokesman Cody Tucker in an email to PolitiFact Oregon. Annie Clark with the NRCC disagrees. She cited four other times where Schrader voted against construction. Schrader voted against constructing or expediting construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline every chance he had, she wrote to PolitiFact Oregon. We checked his other votes. The legislation sought to force Obama to act or bypassed him altogether in approving Keystone. Loads of House Democrats voted against the bills. Schrader did voteagainst H.R. 3,which eliminates further regulatory hurdles, eliminates presidential input and essentially gives congressional go-ahead for construction. This statement by itself we would rate Half True. It is partially accurate in that Schrader did vote against the legislation, which authorizes the project. But it is missing significant details in that Schrader supports construction in principle, just not this particular way to get there. Had the NRCC said that Schrader voted against the bill -- as opposed to the project -- the statement would be True. The NRCC is accurate in citing that nearly 75 percent of Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Nanos survey is solid, as is a Pew Research poll that showed two-thirds support. With the polling part True and the project part Half True, that brings our ruling to Mostly True for this two-part statement. (If you want to leave a comment, go to http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/did_kurt_schrader_vote_against.html#incart_m-rpt-2) Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In December 2020, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, the FBI and other federal agencies began to warn of fraudsters exploiting interest in the newly released vaccine. INTERPOL, as well, issued an Orange Notice alerting law enforcement to "potential criminal activity in relation to the falsification, theft and illegal advertising of COVID-19 and flu vaccines." approved warn Orange Notice One area where these scams have reportedly proliferated is the so-called dark web. Broadly speaking, the dark web refers to unindexed content on the internet that can not be searched for and that, among other things, contains several anonymous marketplaces and forums that purport to sell a wide range of illicit material. On Feb. 8, 2021, CBS News reported that "in just the last six weeks, the number of vaccine ads on the dark web has exploded," adding that "the asking prices have doubled or even quadrupled." reportedly refers reported For a Dec. 25, 2020, segment on PlanetMoney, NPR spoke to Chad Anderson, a senior security researcher at the cyberthreat intelligence agency Domain Tools. "We're a cyberthreat intelligence data company," he explained, "so we scan the entire Internet as many times as we can every single day and give insights to customers based upon what we see." Back then, he argued the vaccine ads popping up on the dark web were clearly scams. NPR Chad Anderson "For one thing," NPR correspondent Stacey Vanek Smith explained, "the Pfizer vaccine requires a very intense cold storage chain. The vaccines have to be kept at negative 70 degrees Fahrenheit." And also, she added, "the COVID vaccine ads are mixed in with ads for all kinds of other things, and Chad says that tends to be a red flag." At the time of this reporting, the only two FDA-approved vaccines are the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. Both shots are mRNA vaccines, and as such they both require this high level of refrigeration for transport. explained Snopes reached out to Anderson to ask if ads for vaccines on dark web marketplaces still appeared to be scams, as of February 2021. "Just went and took a look at the last of the 'reputable' markets [on the dark web] and I still don't see any COVID vaccines for sale on there," he wrote to us by email, adding that he did see some ads for the largely discredited treatment hydroxychloroquine, but not much else on the COVID-19 front. One problem with the dark web, however, is that there is no requirement for "reputable behavior" and few safeguards against predatory behavior. Several media reports have cited a dark web market named Agartha as having ads for COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed it does  several hundred of them, according to a recent analysis by Snopes  but these ads are all comically obvious frauds. One ad listed under "opiates," for instance, asked for "mutual trust" in its effort to sell some "Moderona" vaccine: media reports   Other ads claim to be able to ship the Pfizer vaccine, which as a reminder requires extreme refrigeration for storage, by FedEx at no additional cost. Many ads, like the one below, don't even specify what vaccine product they purport to sell. Instead, the ad appears to be a bait-and-switch for a seller peddling other drugs ranging from marijuana to fentanyl:   According to DomainTools' Anderson, "Agartha is considered an entire scam market." He added that "I've never thrown money into my user wallet on there, but I have heard from others that the moment you do it's immediately siphoned off to another wallet that I would assume is the wallet of those running the site." CBS News, in its reporting, cited the work of cybersecurity company Check Point. That firm attempted to purchase COVID-19 vaccines from various dark web sellers, even sending a Bitcoin payment to one. "A few days after the Bitcoin transaction, Check Point received a message from the vendor saying the vaccine had been shipped, CBS reported. "Then a few days later, that vendor's account completely disappeared from the site." They never received any product in return, and the firm concluded that none of the sellers they found actually had any vaccine to sell.  reported Overt fraud aside, a possibility remains that as more easily transportable vaccines are approved and produced, a dark web black market for vaccines could develop. "As time goes by, and more people get access to legitimate doses, there's always the possibility that some of that real product could make its way onto the dark web," CBS reported. "More providers will lead to looser shipping restrictions," Anderson agreed. reported The risks from engaging in these transactions are multifaceted. Outside of a potential loss of money, there are risks of receiving unknown and dangerous drugs instead of a vaccine or having identifying information stolen. "In addition to the dangers of ordering potentially life-threatening products," a December 2020 Interpol news release stated, "an analysis by the INTERPOLs Cybercrime Unit revealed that of 3,000 websites associated with online pharmacies suspected of selling illicit medicines and medical devices, around 1,700 contained cyber threats, especially phishing and spamming malware." In other words, even if these listings were not overt scams, it's not worth the risk. stated Because at this time there are several ads for COVID-19 vaccines on various dark web markets of low repute, but that none of them appear to be legitimate, we rate the claim that the vaccines are for sale as "false." One of President Barack Obamas signature issues at the moment is a push to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Its such a popular policy, he said in aspeechon March 5, 2014, that even Republicans have little quarrel with it. When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage, Obama said, not only is it good policy, but the majority of the country, including half of Republicans, agree with it. We wondered whether polling data backed up this claim. So we looked at independent polls taken recently that asked about the minimum wage. A review of the polling data suggests a more nuanced situation than Obamas claim suggests. Our first look at the data showed that a minimum-wage hike is popular among Americans broadly. For instance, when theCBS News-New York Timespollasked, Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? in February 2014, the poll found 65 percent support. And that was actually down a bit from the 72 percent support registered in the January edition of the poll. Similarly, aPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll from January asked whether respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and found 73 percent support. But what about Republicans specifically? More than half of Republicans favor a minimum-wage increase, polls found, but in most of these polls, less than half of Republicans supported raising the wage to $10.10, the amount Obama is seeking. One poll that did not specify a target amount for the minimum-wage hike was conducted byQuinnipiac University. It asked, Would you support or oppose raising the national minimum wage, which is now $7.25 an hour? Among Republicans, 52 percent expressed support, while 45 percent said they opposed it. That provides some support to Obamas claim. But once respondents were asked by other pollsters about the $10.10 figure -- a roughly 40 percent increase from todays federal minimum wage -- Republican support sagged. The clearest example is aCBS-New York Timespollfrom February that asked, As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Republicans expressed 42 percent support, 54 percent opposition. Another clear example was anABC News-Washington Postpollfrom December, 2013 that asked, The minimum wage in this country is now $7.25 an hour. What do you think it should be? Among Republicans, only 21 percent favored keeping it the same or lowering it, but even fewer respondents -- 7 percent -- favored a minimum wage in excess of $10. Two other polls showed Republican support close to 50 percent, but falling just short. However, the differences were within the margin of sampling error -- it's possible that more than half of Republicans were in support of a $10.10 wage, though also possible that the actual support level was even lower than the official result. ACBS-New York Timespollfrom January that asked the same question as the February poll found that Republicans expressed 48 percent support, 51 percent opposition to a $10.10 wage. And anNBC News-Wall Street Journalpollfrom December 2013asked, I'm going to mention a number of different amounts and for each one, please tell me if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose raising the hourly minimum wage to that amount. When presented with the $10.10 rate, 47 percent of Republicans expressed support. One poll clearly supported Obamas position. The JanuaryPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll found 53 percent of Republicans backing a $10.10 minimum wage, with 43 percent opposed. The significance of the $10.10 figure is not academic. According to a March 6accountin theWashington Post, early last year, White House strategists rejected (the $10.10 figure), worried that it could destroy jobs and anger the business community just as the regulation-heavy Affordable Care Act was about to take effect. Instead, former officials say, the White House settled on a more cautious path,unveiling a $9-an-hour minimum wageproposal  a target even lower than Obamahad proposedduring the 2008 campaign. However, thePostreported, the lower amount disappointed advocates for the working poor, as well as congressional Democrats, who were already pushing to set the $7.25 wage closer to $10 an hour. Over the past year, Obama reconsidered, casting off initial concerns in favor of unifying his party ahead of this falls midterm elections. In other words, White House officials had long realized there was a difference in the degree of public support for a $10.10 minimum wage and a smaller hike, so it would be misleading for Obama to now imply that majority Republican support for an unspecified minimum-wage hike means that Republicans automatically support the presidents proposal to raise the wage to $10.10. Our ruling Obama said, When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicans agree with it. Republicans do support a minimum-wage hike if you don't specify a dollar figure. But once you mention the $10.10 target Obama wants, his case gets shakier. We rate the claim Mostly True. On 26 February 2016, Facebook user Karl de la Guerrapublished an "Officer Warning" post alongside several pictures showing agun disguised as a cell phone which was presented a threat to police: Karl de la Guerra post   The photographs were shared tens of thousands of times, often as a warning to officers to remain vigilant, but the pictured item was neither illegal nor widely available at the time.According to the Facebook page"IDEAL Conceal  Patent Pending," the depicted weapon was marketed to licensed gun owners as a discreet method of carrying: page [We i]nvented a new style of self-defense. Looks like a cellphone when folded up, but push the saftey and you are ready to defend yourself. On 22 February 2016, the page posted an image indicating that the manufacturer advocated the guns to protect (not harm) police officers:  YEPPER! Posted by IDEAL Conceal - patent pending onMonday, February 22, 2016 IDEAL Conceal - patent pending Monday, February 22, 2016 In a separate post, the company responded to a user interested in purchasing the concept gun: Prototype phase is finishing up, production mid-2016[.] Subsequent comments indicated that the concept was marketed at gun enthusiasts, not criminals: What you're seeing is a 3D model. Production will begin mid-summer. Planning to show first proto-type in May at the NRA show in Loiseville!! STAY TUNED! IDEAL Conceal's website listed a projected price ($395) and a target market: website Specializing in concealed weaponry, we aim to deliver a high quality handgun that can be deployed very quickly for the defense of you or your family. The idea for Ideal Conceal follows the present-day demand for handguns that people can carry on a day to day basis, in a manner that makes carrying a gun easy to do. From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim. Our mission is to promote security and public safety by designing and manufacturing innovative and unparalleled products engineered to protect ... The unrivaled Ideal Conceal pistol is a carefully engineered double barreled derringer. Cunningly designed to look like a smartphone when folded up, one click of the safety and youre ready to go. This product is a defensive weapon designed with the utmost safety in mind. On 28 February 2016, de la Guerra posted an updated about his original claim (but didn't delete the first one): Friday morning I posted some information I found in a foreign publication regarding a .380 double barrel pistol designed to appear like a cell phone. As those of you who have followed me on FB for a while know, I regularly post information on dangerous items that can potentially cause harm to those in public safety. This is merely an extension of my work as a protective services instructor. Since I posted that last piece of information, the FB friend requests I have received has rapidly increased. And since I know none of these people, I can only assume that they took an interest in my post. In some cases it appears that interest is of a negative context. To further clarify my position, I have taken the liberty of posting a FB message I received this morning (no names mentioned) and my associated response.  Friday morning I posted some information I found in a foreign publication regarding a .380 double barrel pistol designed... Posted by Karl de la Guerra onSunday, February 28, 2016 Karl de la Guerra Sunday, February 28, 2016 The rumor strongly resembled earlier warnings about purported Super Soaker modifications as "new gang trends," or a claim that gang members were removing lug nuts from officers' vehicles. All instances seemed to involve warnings rooted in things folks imagined criminals might be doing, rather than informationabout things that criminals actually were doing. Super Soaker lug nuts IDEAL Conceal told us that the device wasdesigned for officers (and others) to carry guns discreetly and legally, and that the manufacturers are strong supporters oflaw enforcement: Thanks so much for taking the time to contact us. We totally support law enforcement. Further, we would never promote or make a product for ambushing anyone, let alone police. In fact we have received MANY requests from Law Enforcement to purchase this weapon for undercover and off duty officers. This gun is for people who need or want to carry to protect themselves. Also, this pistol cannot be fired from the closed position as people assume. This is just an everyday type of conceal carry handgun. Also, it is not even on the market yet. Will come out mid-2016. Thanks again for contacting us. Hopefully you can help correct this dreadful rumor. The gun's makers expressed support for both police and the National Rifle Association, and the stealth gun didn't appear to be in any way a covert criminal effort to get the jump on cops. Also, peoplereaching for actual phones and wallets have been shot by officers in the past, making the premise that carryinga phone-shaped gunin your pocket was an effective way to target police officers extremelyshaky. actual phones wallets However, cell phone guns were not unheard of before this. In the past fifteen years, various warningshave been sounded about guns disguised as phones (and other everyday objects) but this is the first time that they appear to have been marketed to mainstream gun enthusiastsin theUnited States. warnings