Idaho clergy members compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies
Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014.
Claim:  Wal-Mart is trying out products embedded with RFID tracking chips.  Example:  [Starrett, 2003] BIG BROTHER COMES TO WAL-MART  Starting this week, the nation's largest discount retailer will quietly begin selling tracking-chipped products to clueless shoppers. The first volley in their war against our privacy is set to start at their Brockton, Massachusetts store.  Wal-Mart will put Radio Frequency I.D. sensors on shelves stocked with RFID-tagged Gillette products, but they'd rather you didn't know about it, because, hey, you might not like it, and then you might make noise and then they'd have a big PR mess on their hands.  You might even stop buying Gillette products or, say, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.  These chips, researched at M.I.T.'s Auto-ID Center are about the size of a grain of sand. Chipsters say the technology will only be used to help retailers keep track of inventory  like bar codes. But privacy-loving consumers question the very concept of a device that sends out radio waves to "readers" that not only identify the article, but where and with whom it's going.  [Click here to view rest of article] here Origins:  One of the keys to the success of giant retailing chains such as Wal-Mart has been the advancement of information technology which allows for tight control of inventory.  The ability to quickly and accurately track the movement of product through their stores enables retailers to ensure that customers don't find a wanted item out of stock, while avoiding the spoilage and costly inefficiencies that come with keeping too much unsold inventory on hand.  These improvements lower retailers' operating costs, and the savings are (theoretically) passed along to consumers in the form of lower  prices. The adoption of the Universal Product Code, or UPC (more commonly known as the "bar code"), in the 1970s was one of the most significant steps in automating the tracking of inventory.  With every product assigned a unique code (encoded in bar form on the packaging) which could be read by a scanner and matched up with information stored in a database, retailers could eliminate the costly and time-consuming processes of individually price-tagging every single item and manually counting items to determine the amount of inventory on hand; instead, prices could be read by scanners at the point of sale, and purchases could be tracked automatically and the number of items sold subtracted from stock-on-hand to calculate current inventory levels. UPC A more recent advance in inventory control has been the development of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.  Described as "bar codes on steroids," tiny RFID chips are being embedded in products (or their packaging) to assist retailers with Automatic Identification and Data Capture (AIDC).  The RFID chips, when triggered by sensors, emit short bursts of identifying data streamed via radio waves; this system is a significant improvement over bar coding system for a number of reasons, including: RFID  RFID chips can store much more information than bar codes.  RFID chips are a read/write technology, so more information can be added to them as needed.  RFID chips don't require line-of-sight proximity (i.e., the information they store can be read even when products are still encased in boxes or crates).  RFID chips are more robust (i.e., not subject to problems caused by tearing, creasing, or alteration) than bar coding. Most important, perhaps, RFID chips can enable the tracking of individual pieces of merchandise.  That is, rather than simply identifying an item as a box of Cheerios (as bar codes do), an RFID chip can uniquely identify a particular box of Cheerios and enable it to be tracked all the way through the sales chain, from the warehouse to a consumer's shopping cart.  This level of uniqueness in tracking can, for example, aid in the removal of expired merchandise from store shelves or assist in locating items designated as part of a product recall. The announcement in June 2003 that Gillette would be trying out some of their RFID-tagged products (such as batteries, razors, oral care products) in cooperation with a Brockton, Massachusetts, Wal-Mart prompted the article by Mary Starrett quoted above, a dire "Big Brother" warning insinuating that RFID tags would not necessarily be disabled at the point of purchase and could be used to track items even after consumers had purchased them and taken them home.  Ms. Starrett also suggested that the Brockton store was chosen for this experiment because "the store's customers are typically lower income minorities who'd be less likely to be aware of the tracking devices, and even less likely to make a fuss about them." (RFID tags have no built-in batteries or power supplies; they're activated by radio waves sent out from RFID readers which emit just enough power to trigger the tags and have a limited range limit, so Orwellian nightmare scenarios involving avaricious corporations tracking the locations of every one of their products all over the globe are not yet a reality.) The wireless inventory control system trial referenced in this particular 2003 warning did not take place.  On 9 July 2003, CNET news reported that Wal-Mart had canceled it: canceled "The shelf was never completely installed," Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams said. "We didn't want it. Any materials that were there (in Brockton) were removed. We never had products with chips in them." In July 2010, news accounts stated that Wal-Mart would soon be placing removable RFID "smart tags" on individual garments such as jeans and underwear in order to optimize stocking and inventory control procedures (and, if the results were promising, the company would eventually roll out RFID-tagging with other products as well).  Privacy advocates responded by again raising concerns that the RFID technology could be used not just for inventory purposes, but for intrusive customer-tracking activities: While the tags can be removed from clothing and packages, they can't be turned off, and they are trackable. Some privacy advocates hypothesize that unscrupulous marketers or criminals will be able to drive by consumers' homes and scan their garbage to discover what they have recently bought. They also worry that retailers will be able to scan customers who carry new types of personal ID cards as they walk through a store, without their knowledge. Several states, including Washington and New York, have begun issuing enhanced driver's licenses that contain radio- frequency tags with unique ID numbers, to make border crossings easier for frequent travelers. Some privacy advocates contend that retailers could theoretically scan people with such licenses as they make purchases, combine the info with their credit card data, and then know the person's identity the next time they stepped into the store. Wal-Mart tried to allay fears by noting that it was notifying customers about the RFID tags, that the tags would be easily removable, and that the tags themselves contain no personally identifying information: Wal-Mart is demanding that suppliers add the tags to removable labels or packaging instead of embedding them in clothes, to minimize fears that they could be used to track people's movements. It also is posting signs informing customers about the tags. "Concerns about privacy are valid, but in this instance, the benefits far outweigh any concerns," says Sanjay Sarma, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The tags don't have any personal information. They are essentially barcodes with serial numbers attached. And you can easily remove them." Additional Information: Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering  (CASPIAN)  Last updated:  25 July 2010    Gaither, Chris.  "Tiny Tracking Chips Surface in Retail Use."   The Boston Globe.  9 June 2003.     Shim, Richard.  "Wal-Mart to Throw Its Weight Behind RFID."   CNET News.com.  5 June 2003.     Shim, Richard and Alorie Gilbert.  "Wal-Mart Cancels 'Smart Shelf' Trial."   CNET News.com.  9 July 2003. 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 the spring of 2020, as debate raged over the timeliness and effectiveness of U.S. President Donald Trump's response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, some critics pointed to an article dating from shortly before Trump's January 2017 inauguration, in which Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), seemingly warned that the incoming president would "no doubt" be faced with a "surprise infectious disease outbreak":  This image did reflect a genuine article, published on Jan. 11, 2017 (nine days before Trump's inauguration), headlined "Fauci: No doubt Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak." That article read (in part): published Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is no doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency. Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak. During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak. The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with, he said. As noted above, Dr. Fauci's comments were made during a Georgetown University forum on pandemic preparedness, at which Fauci delivered the keynote address on the subject of "Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration," which he opened with the following statement: "I thought I would bring that perspective [of my experience in five administrations] to the topic today, [which] is the issue of pandemic preparedness. And if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience ... [it] is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming [Trump] administration in the arena of infectious diseases ... both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease ... but also there will be a surprise outbreak, and I hope by the end my relatively short presentation you will understand why history, the history of the last 32 years that I've been the director of the NAIAD, will tell the next administration that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with." https://youtu.be/DNXGAxGJgQI Dr. Fauci did not literally warn in January 2017 that the Trump administration would certainly face a deadly pandemic affecting the U.S., but he said more generally (while speaking on the subject of pandemic preparedness) there was "no question" that a "surprise outbreak" of infectious disease would occur. The outgoing (Obama) administration had already faced multiple such events, including the 2009 swine flu (H1N1) pandemic, the 20152016 Zika virus epidemic, and the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa: swine flu Zika virus Ebola outbreak Fauci and others noted some of the disease outbreaks that recent administrations have faced, including current President Barack Obama, whose administration was tested early on with an H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. More recently, the administration was forced to repurpose almost $600 million in federal funds set aside for the Ebola outbreak when Republicans rejected Obamas request for $1.9 billion to fund the nations Zika response.   Healio  "Fauci: No Doubt Trump Will Face Surprise Infectious Disease Outbreak."
  11 January 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas  Region of the Americas, May 2015  January 2016."
  29 January 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa."
  Accessed 14 May 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 Virus)."
  Accessed 14 May 2020. Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010,  fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested  by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson 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 Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. As President Donald Trumpstrade warwages on, we decided to check in on the most affected sectors. U.S. Agriculture Department Secretary Sonny Perdue said farmers, who will receive $12 billion in aid, were particularly affected by the dispute. Americas hard-working agricultural producers have been treated unfairly by Chinas illegal trading practices and have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs, Perdue said in a USDApress releaseon July 26. Well leave aside the question of whether the retaliatory tariffs are any more illegal than the initial U.S. tariffs on imports. But we were interested in the second half of his claim: Have agricultural producers taken a disproportionate hit? The Agriculture Department pointed out that 37 percent of U.S. exports facing retaliatory tariffs are agricultural exports. Those are the tariffs as of July 31, 2018 coming from China, the European Union, India, Turkey, Mexico and Canada. Thats disproportionate to the total goods the United State exports: about 10 percent are agricultural goods, according to the USDAs 2017 data. Its hard to measure the exact numbers, though. Thats because tariffs are listed individually by the governments that issue them (in this case, not the United States), and because the United States doesnt keep close tabs on exports. USDA calculated the 37 percent figure using official import customs data from the retaliating partner through a private third party, Global Trade Atlas. Export data is notoriously bad, Laura Baughman, president of the Trade Partnership, told us in July. Its inaccurate because people dont necessarily report it very carefully, since you are not assessing tariffs on exports. However, the agricultural industry is on average much more dependent on world markets than other industries, according to David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Exports comprise 10 percent of total GDP in the United States, whereas they comprise about 20 percent of GDP in the American agricultural sector. That fraction iseven higherfor crops like cotton (76 percent is exported), soybeans (50 percent) and wheat (46 percent), according to USDA. About 16 to 17 percent of exports to China are agricultural goods, so any conflict with China (like the ongoing one) takes a heavy toll on agriculture, Laborde said. He calculated that 86.8 percent of agricultural exports to China are impacted by retaliatory tariffs while 36.9 percent of the non-agricultural exports are covered. Farmers face two additional aggravators: their products are easily replaceable and theyre an easy political target. One ton of U.S. soybeans is a nearly perfect substitute to one ton of Brazilian soybeans, Laborde pointed out. But high-tech medical equipment (another type of products exported to China) is difficult to substitute, so Chinese consumers are more willing to endure the tariff. And from a political economy point of view, Laborde said it made sense for China to maintain pressure on farmers in particular, as a core constituency for the Trump administration. Perdue said, Americas hard-working agricultural producers  have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs. Its difficult to measure the impact of tariffs on the economy and particularly hard to measure the impact of retaliatory tariffs on exports. That said, the economy sets up agricultural producers to bear the brunt of tariffs. Exports are doubly important for the agricultural sectors GDP as for the countrys GDP. USDA calculated that 37 percent of exports facing tariffs are agricultural goods, whereas agricultural goods comprise 10 percent of total exports. We rate this statement Mostly True. Claim:  Forger steals money by manipulating ABA symbols on checks. LEGEND Origins:  One of the ways paperhangers were supposedly able to pass bad checks easily once upon a time was by manipulating the American Bankers Association (ABA) numbers encoded on nearly all checks with magnetic ink.  Although the American banking system relies heavily upon this information for the automated sorting and routing of checks, many bank personnel are unfamiliar with or pay little attention to these numbers. ABA The system has changed a little bit over the years, but nowadays checks typically bear a nine-digit ABA routing number printed in the bottom left-hand corner (indicated as #5 in the above diagram).  In general, the first four digits are a Federal Reserve routing symbol,  identifying which of the twelve Federal Reserve districts the check was printed in (and a city within that district).  The next four digits are an ABA institution identifier which designates the bank on which the check is drawn, and the last number is a check digit. Federal Reserve Check forgers manipulated the banking system by altering the ABA routing numbers on the bad checks they passed so that the numbers identified different banks than the ones whose information was printed on the face of those checks.  For example, a forger attempting to pass a bad check in Boston might present a check whose printed information indicated it was drawn on a Philadelphia bank, but whose  routing number had been altered to indicate that it came from a bank in the 12th Federal Reserve district (which encompasses the western United States).  The Boston bank would expect a check drawn on a Philadelphia bank to clear within two or three days and assume that if it hadn't been kicked back to them by the end of the third day, it was good.  However, the altered routing number would cause the automated sorting machinery to send the check on to a San Francisco clearing house for processing.  Once the check arrived in San Francisco, a computer there would kick it out because the routing number didn't match the other information encoded on the check, and the check would be mailed back to the Philadelphia bank for processing.  This whole process could take several days, but because the Boston bank assumed the check was good after the third day, the forger could withdraw his funds and leave town long before they discovered his check was phony. Con man Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) claims in his memoirs that he "was the first check swindler to use the routing numbers racket" in the late 1960s.  One of Thomas Whiteside's 1977 New Yorker articles included an example of what supposedly happened when a forger altered checks drawn on the Chemical Bank in New York so that their routing numbers identified them as coming from a Los Angeles bank: Although the check bore the name and address of the Chemical Bank in New York, the Federal Reserve data-processing system scanned only the magnetic-ink code on it, identified it as a Bank of America check, and routed it to Los Angeles.  The check remained in transit for perhaps two days. At the end of that time, it was run through the computer mechanism at the Bank of America.  The computer, instantly searching its memory for a Bank of America account number matching that of the magnetic-ink strip on the check, rejected the check, which then went into a clerical pool for manual handling. Since the printed logotype on the check clearly identified it as a check that belonged in the Chemical Bank in New York, the clerk handling the machine-rejected check sent it back to the Chemical Bank by mail, assuming that a simple routing error had been made.  The check was then in transit for another two days. Back at the Chemical Bank, the check was put into the computerized sorting system for final clearance. But instead of that, it went into motion again: the Chemical Bank computing system passed it on to the Federal Reserve System, which routed it out to the Los Angeles bank again, which routinely sent it back to New York, and so on. The fraud was uncovered only when checks issued by the depositor became so frayed from mechanical handling in the computer system that they could no longer be read automatically ... [b]y that time, according to an auditor who told me of the affair, the depositor had disappeared with more than $1 million in cash. Last updated:  1 July 2014    Whiteside, Thomas.  Computer Capers.   New York: Mentor, 1978.  ISBN 0-451-62173-5  (pp. 31-33).