Transcript for Hillary Clinton's Speech to Goldman Sachs Leaked?
In February 2016, the transcriptof a speech Hillary Clinton purportedly gave to Goldman Sach's on 4 June 2013 started circulating online: The following is a leaked transcript of Hillary Clintons 1st speech to Goldman Sachs delivered on 6/04/2013. Two other speeches are also rumored to be in circulation. This is the full transcript. Secretary Clinton received $225,000 for this speech. HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Lloyd [Blankfein], and thanks to everyone at Goldman Sachs for welcoming me today. Im delighted to be back among friends, colleagues, collaborators, supporters, kindred spirits Let me jump right in. You know, over the past few months, there have been popular concerns about an economy that still isnt delivering for the majority of Americans. Its not delivering the way that they feel it should, that they feel entitled to. Most Americans that you speak to, speak a populist rhetoric that claims it is stacked for those at the top, that those of you here have it too good. (Laughter) But we know the hopes that the little people have for their future  things like school, job, food, clothing on their backs all of those little things would not be possible without your leadership and innovation. Several publications,such asBSNews, CounterPunch,andDissident Voice, lent credence to thetranscripts when they published them in full.These web sites all attributed itstext to author K.J. Noh, who is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign. BSNews CounterPunch Dissident Voice While the aforementioned web sites are not exclusively satirical publications, they do occasionally (as is the case above)publishsatire: BSNews, in stark contrast, is here to tell you the truth. We pride ourselves on covering the news stories the corporate media wont dare touch. We will from time to time take satirical side swipes at journalists within the MSM (see Special Reports) and we will be producing spoof media animations (see Podcast) but we will never deliberately lie or mislead OUR audience about the most important news stories of the day. While we couldn't find any indication that BSNewshad labeled the above-quoted story as satire,Counter Punchfeatured a "satire alert" at the top of its article and theDissident Voice(where thepurported transcript of Clinton's speech first appeared) filed the story as piece of fiction:   The transcripts of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs have not been leaked or published anywhere on the internet. When the Democratic presidential candidate was asked about the speeches she made during a town hall meeting on 18 February 2016, she said that she would releasethemwhen the other candidates did the same: release At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand. Mrs. Clinton had told him, I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.
A story about two armed "illegal aliens" killed during an attempted home invasion by an 11-year-old shotgun-wielding girl was posted to LibertyPost.org on 25 April 2007:  Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. Although the account was widely cited as a validation of "anti-illegal immigration" and/or pro-gun ownership positions, confirmation of the tale as a real-life incident was lacking. The only documentation for this item was numerous web sites all citing the same information, with no details of time or place (other than a reference to Montana). Searches of news databases (including Montana-based newspapers) failed to turn up any corresponding news stories containing any of the four names provided, and the name of one of the putative criminals ("Ralphel Resendez") just happened to echo an alias (Raphael Resendez-Ramirez) used by Angel Maturino Resendiz (also an undocumented immigrant), the infamous "Railroad Killer." Railroad Killer Although many versions of this item cited the home invasion incident as having taken place in Butte, Montana, that area's sheriff said no such thing had occurred in that city: When asked about the authenticity of the events described in this story, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh told The Montana Standard that his office never investigated such an incident. "This never happened," Walsh said. The story claims the girl shot and killed the two intruders while she was home alone. The story doesn't provide a street address or attribute the information to any official sources. Walsh brushed off the story as an urban myth. "It's amazing how these things get around," he said. The only news story (of recent vintage) we could turn up about a minor using a shotgun to kill two armed intruders attempting a home invasion robbery took place in December 2006 and involved a 17-year-old boy in Texas (rather than an 11-year-old girl in Montana): news story An overnight home invasion robbery attempt in northeast Harris County ended in a hail of gunfire that left two suspects dead. Investigators said a 17-year-old was home with his cousin when four armed men kicked in the door and started shooting. The teen pulled out a shotgun of his own and fired back at the suspects, killing two of them. Going back almost twenty years to 1988, we did find a news story about an 11-year-old shooting and killing two home intruders, but again the details didn't match the example cited above: Switzer, S.C.  An 11-year-old boy who had been left alone after school shot and killed two men as they tried to steal a videocassette recorder from his family's home, police said. William Todd Knight, the son of Billy and Ann Knight, "acted very wisely," said Spartanburg County Coroner Jim Burnett. "His life was in danger, he looked for an escape and could not find one ... he was a very brave young man." Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department Capt. John Blackwood said the boy was watching cartoons in his parents' bedroom Monday afternoon when he heard noises at the front door of the family's brick, ranch-style home. Todd told officers he was scared, so he went to his room for the .22-caliber rifle his father had given him for Christmas and loaded four rounds. He then went to the front door and saw a man he described as "rough" pounding on the door. The man finally left in a white Datsun. Todd said he resumed watching cartoons and about 10 minutes later heard banging, this time at a dining room window. He saw two men climbing through the dining room window. The boy said he went into the bathroom to climb out the window, but saw the white Datsun was parked in the back yard. Todd told police he went back to the hallway, peeked around the corner into the den and was spotted by one of the intruders as they were taking the VCR. Todd then fired three rounds at the men, who dropped the VCR and fled. When police arrived, one of the dead men was found face down next to a woodpile in the back yard, approximately 50 to 75 feet from the house, while the second man was in the driver's seat of the white two-door Datsun. In October 2012, a 12-year-old Oklahoma girl shot (but did not kill) an unarmed burglar who broke into the house while she was home alone: Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered. "I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra [said]. Petrified, she called her mom Debra. "I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911." The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee. Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home. Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn. At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun. Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house. They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary. In January 2015, an 11-year-old Michigan girl armed with a shotgun was reported to have scared away (but not fired upon) a home intruder: An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect  later taken into custody  during a home invasion in Lapeer County's North Branch Township. The girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway. One person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun. The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home. Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter. "The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon." Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure. "She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by." In August 2015, an 11-year-old St. Louis boy left home with his 4-year-old sister reportedly staved off several home invasion attempts before finally shooting and killing a 16-year-old intruder, although accounts differ as to what actually took place: accounts Authorities said an 11-year-old child and his 4-year-old sister were at their home when two men attempted to break in. The suspects attempted to get into the home twice, but failed. They made their way inside through the front door on the third attempt around 2:30 p.m. After the suspects entered the home, police said, the 11-year-old picked up a gun and fatally shot Lamonte Streeter. According to police, Streeter's body was found inside the home and evidence collected at the scene indicate that he was shot while inside. Some neighbors are providing a different version of events. One woman, who said she saw the shooting, [said] the 11-year-old and Streeter were arguing on the home's front porch when the shots were fired. "The little boy's (person shot) jumped up and went towards there and laid down and he lands in the doorway. He was always sitting on the porch, he never went inside the house," said a neighbor. The second alleged intruder, identified by police as a 22-year-old man, was arrested shortly after the incident on suspicion of burglary, police said. Acosta, Roberto. "11-Year-Old Uses Shotgun to Scare Off Suspect Home Invasion."
  The Flint Journal.  1 February 2015. Emeigh, John Grant. "Fake Story Still Circulating on Internet."
  The Montana Standard.  13 December 2007. Greenblatt, Mark. "Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary."
  ABC News.  20 October 2012. Associated Press. "Boy, 11, Shoots, Kills 2 Intruders."
  The [Elyria, OH] Chronicle Telegram.  15 March 1988 (p. 6). KHOU-TV [Houston]. "Teen Shoots, Kills 2 Would-Be Robbers."
  28 December 2006. Claim:  Dr. Walter Williams penned an opinion piece entitled "No Matter What," about President Obama'a inevitable re-election. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April  2011] No Matter WhatBy Dr. Walter Williams Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising. But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term. America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily. You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do. And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated. Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office. Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following: 1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us, 2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that, 3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope, 4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coattails will carry them to victory nationwide, 5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party, 6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics, 7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda, 8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist, 9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly, 10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. - Dr. Walter Williams Origins:  Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980.   However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site: Walter Williams disclaimer We published an article that we thought was written by him and we have subsequently found out it was not. The title of the article we published was "No Matter What" and it was published on April 1. Please be informed that this article was mistakenly attributed to Dr Williams.  We admire Dr. Williams work and the article we published was not written by him and was, in fact, a "phony" that fooled us also. We hope, by way of this explanation, to inform those who took the article as genuine to know that it was bogus and that Dr Williams had nothing to do with the writing of the article entitled "No Matter What" that appeared under the column entitled "A Bad Dream" published on the RiteOn web site on April 1.  We erred in not researching the real source of the article prior to publication and we erred in publishing it. We try within our means to avoid publishing phony material of the sort represented by this article and we are sorry we failed to catch the mistake prior to publication.   Chuck MacNab, Editor and Publisher, RiteOn.org Last updated:  26 April 2011 Why the big surplus predicted in the state budget? Gov.Scott Walkersays wise government belt-tightening and reforms, tax cuts and business-friendly deregulation boosted hiring and the economy, promising now to help fill state coffers with extra income-tax revenue. When Walker made that claim in hisState of the State addresson Jan. 22, 2014, theDemocratic Party of Wisconsinbegged to differ. Scott Walkers surplus isnt built on prudent financial decisions -- its built on disinvestments in our future that harm the economic security of the middle class, aDemocratic news releaseissued during the speech argued. Walkers first budget cut nearly one billion dollars from public schools and our technical college system that provides critical job training programs. Then the party added this: The national economic recovery has led to higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state in the nation, including Wisconsin. Before Walkers speech fades into history, lets check the claim that Wisconsin is far from alone in enjoying a firmer financial footing. Wisconsin is projected to have a $1 billion surplus at the end of the two-year budget period covering July 2013 to July 2015 -- almost all of it because tax collections are rising faster than expected, the nonpartisanLegislative Fiscal Bureau saidin January. The predicted surplus -- expected revenues exceeding planned expenditures -- is a notable switch from shortfalls that forced Wisconsin and other states into emergency changes to keep budgets balanced during the Great Recession and its immediate aftermath. We asked Democratic Party spokesperson Melissa Baldauff to back up the claim of higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state. She cited anAssociated Press storyfrom January 2014 that said that almost all states will see fairly decent surpluses in their 2014 budgets. That story quoted theNational Association of State Budget Officers(NASBO). We followed up with Scott Pattison, executive director of the budget officers group. He confirmed the projection. The 2013 stock market surge will goose income tax collections, Pattison said, and many states budgeted conservatively for 2014, not foreseeing the markets runup. That, he said, means surpluses are in store for fiscal year 2014, which for most states ends by mid-year. And that comes on the heels of the 2013 budget year in which 37 states exceeded original (revenue) forecasts, six states were on target and seven states ended fiscal 2013 below the original revenue estimate, according to the nonpartisan budget associations December 2013 report,The Fiscal Survey of States.Baldauff also cited that report. The revenue windfalls meant surpluses were common, the report said. So the Democrats claim of higher than expected tax revenues and resulting widespread surpluses was confirmed by the group. We broadened our view, checking with theNational Conference of State Legislatures, which also regularly tracks state budgets. State fiscal conditions continued to improve in fiscal year (FY) 2013, the group said in itsState Budget Actions FY 2013 and FY 2014.General fund revenue growth was notably strong and outpaced projections in most states. Did that leave states with extra money to play with? Yes, the group said. At the same time, expenditures were generally on target, its report said. The combination of these factors enabled many states to shore up reserves and support supplemental expenditures. Overall, the fiscal situation was solid in almost every state in FY 2013. In another report, the group noted in January 2014 that in a dramatic turn from recent years, California lawmakers will consider how to allocate a potential budget surplusyes, a surplus. In itsState Legislatures Magazinein January 2014, the group added: Driven by improving revenues and on-target expenditures, states entered fiscal year 2014 in better economic shape than they have been in years. The revenue collection boost was somewhat unexpected, it said, and many states used the excess to supplement appropriations or fortify their rainy day funds. Early in fiscal 2014 pointed, state revenue collections were meeting or exceeding targets in most states,the group reported. Few are predicting, though, that revenue gains will be as strong as in 2013. Many states planned for that, said Pattison of the budget officers organization, fearing that the 2013 rise was a one-time event. Our rating The Democratic Party of Wisconsin generated this claim: The national economic recovery has led to higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state in the nation, including Wisconsin. State budget watchers confirm a widespread recovery in tax revenues as the nation continues to edge out of the Great Recession. This fiscal year likely will not match 2013 in tax-revenue growth, but states predicted that and most should see surpluses by mid 2014, as most did in 2013. We rate the partys claim True. In April 2021, American readers may have been intrigued to see a curious article about Denzel Washington and Netflix. The headline from the We Got This Covered website read, "An Underrated Denzel Washington Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week."  Mysterious and sometimes misleading content might be what a lot of Google Discover users are shown these days.  Some readers may have noticed the article in their Google Discover feed. For those unfamiliar with Google Discover, it's a free and personalized news feed that displays content that Google thinks each user might find interesting and relevant. The headline likely led American readers to believe that the "underrated" film was available to stream in the U.S. After all, Netflix's headquarters are located in Los Gatos, California. This was all somewhat misleading. The source referenced by the We Got This Covered article did not show that the movie in question, "The Equalizer 2," was "dominating" Netflix. Instead, FlixPatrol.com indicated that the film barely made the top 10 worldwide movies on Netflix during week 16 of 2021. week 16 of 2021 Further, not included in the Google Discover card for the story was one important tidbit: "The Equalizer 2" was not available to be streamed by Netflix users in the U.S. According to an unofficial website that tracks Netflix availability by country, "The Equalizer 2" was only available on the streaming service in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. unofficial website This was not the first time that the We Got This Covered website published a misleading article about a famous actor and Netflix. In February 2021, the same website also claimed: "Tom Hanks New Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week." The film in question was the 2020 flick "News of the World." claimed As with "The Equalizer 2," "News of the World" wasn't exactly "dominating Netflix," nor was it available for streaming in the U.S. "The Equalizer 2" was originally released in 2018. It received a 51% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 50 out of 100 on Metacritic. 51% critic rating a score of 50  The film reunited director Antoine Fuqua with Washington after they had previously worked together on 2001's "Training Day," a film that is available on Netflix in the U.S. The synopsis for "The Equalizer 2" read: "Denzel Washington returns to one of his signature roles in the first sequel of his career. Robert McCall serves an unflinching justice for the exploited and oppressed  but how far will he go when that is someone he loves?" As of April 2021, no plans had been announced by Netflix to bring "The Equalizer 2" to American audiences. However, it's available to rent for $3.99 on YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and a number of other streaming services. YouTube Amazon Prime Video In sum, a movie starring the actor was not "dominating Netflix," nor was it even available in the U.S. On 12 April 2017, the partisan web site Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements: reported It's more than a conflict of interest. The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets. From announcing he wants federal law enforcement agencies to bust people for a little bit of weed, to ordering federal prosecutors to find ways to convict more immigrants, Sessions is looking for ways to provide more clients to private prisons that are contracted by the federal government... ...As Attorney General Sessions fills these private prisons, he is making money. According to his latest financial disclosures required by congress, dated December 23, 2016, he divested of other investments that were found to be in conflict. In these disclosures, he also lists numerous Vanguard funds. Vanguard owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. A popular meme also broadcast this claim:   The article lists three funds that Sessions has shares in, all of which are managed by the investment firm Vanguard, and claims that the funds contain holdings in two leading companies in the private prison industry: CoreCivic and GEO Group. This is true of only two of those funds. The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation". However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group. Japanese company As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions. federal financial disclosure records Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund And this fund does indeed include CoreCivic and GEO Group:   However, what the article does not mention is that CoreCivic and GEO Group constitute just two out of 3,557 companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF) - that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself), and either publicly traded or "widely-diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics.  Office of Government Ethics A brief look at this particular fund shows that its more than 3,500 holdings relate to companies from throughout the economy, including well-known names such as Cracker Barrel, Zillow and Rite Aid.  The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him, per year. Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund While it does include holdings in CoreCivic and GEO Group, these are just two of 1,422 companies listed in the fund, which come from a variety of sectors and include names like Domino's Pizza and JetBlue Airways. According to Kathleen Clark, a Professor at Washington University School of Law and an expert on legal and government ethics, investments in widely-diversified funds such as these are unlikely to leave a public official vulnerable to conflicts of interest. If it's a diversified fund as opposed to being a sector fund [focused on one sector of the economy], then it's not subject to the conflict of interest statute. Clark told us that even if one or two companies in a widely-diversified fund were to perform well and increase their value, the presence of a large number of other companies in that fund means "It is exceedingly unlikely that such an interest would influence the government official, or that the public would perceive that as a significant risk." This is because income from a widely-diversified fund, like the two we're examining, is based on the aggregate value of the companies within that fund. Remember that in one fund, CoreCivic and GEO Group represent two out of 3,557 companies, and in the other, they represent two out of 1,422. Now remember that the Attorney General's total annual income from the first fund is between $1,403 and $4,500 and from the second fund, it's between $201 and $1,000. So while it's true that Jeff Sessions has some shares in funds that include holdings in two private prison companies, it's misleading to say that this means he stands to gain in any meaningful way from an increase in the value of those companies, or that "The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets." The Attorney General's annual income from these funds - which is relatively low - depends on the overall performance of those funds. A surge in the value of CoreCivic or the GEO Group would very quickly be cancelled out by a dip in the value of just a handful of the thousands of other companies included in those two funds, and because these are widely-diversified Excepted Invested Funds, they don't fall foul of conflict of interest regulations. Budd, Jenn.  "Jeff Sessions Getting Rich Filling Private Prisons."
  Crooks and Liars.  12 April 2017
 Office of Government Ethics.  "Excepted Investment Fund."
  Accessed 17 May 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Office of Government Ethics.  "Public Financial Disclosure Report - Jefferson B. Sessions."
  Accessed 17 May 2017. Soon after the White House released the Economic Report of the President on Feb. 11, 2010, Republicans derided its boast that the massive economic stimulus championed by President Barack Obama may in time be viewed as one of the great triumphs of timely, effective countercyclical macroeconomic policy.Washington Democrats still dont get it, House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote in a press release. Two days after the president brushed off Republicans' concerns that Democrats' job-killing policies are causing great uncertainty for small businesses, the White House is now declaring in a new report that the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' will be one of historys 'great triumphs.' The very same report, however, notes that unemployment will average 10 percent for the rest of the year. The Obama administration promised the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and keep joblessness below 8 percent.The report does, in fact, project that the unemployment rate will hover at about 10 percent through this year. With many press accounts of the economic report highlighting the forecast that job gains for 2010 will average 95,000 a month, those two facts may seem at odds. They are not.A certain number of jobs need to be created every month simply to hold the unemployment rate stable, said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. That's because the working-age population is growing.In addition, as the job market improves -- or is even perceived as improving -- some people who had given up on looking for work may get back in the game and be added to the unemployed ranks. So there would have to be about 100,000 jobs added a month just for the unemployment rate to tread water.Even still, the report says, there's evidence the labor market is stabilizing.That's because the economy shed 691,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2009, 428,000 in the second quarter, 199,000 in the third, and 69,000 in the fourth. So to have the number of jobs increasing even moderately is an improvement.But Boehner's statement includes an assumption masquerading as a fact: It's that the stimulus has failed if unemployment rates remain at 10 percent through the year. While Boehner and other Republicans have long cited rising unemployment as proof that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, many reputable and independent economists say it has, and that the unemployment rate would be even worse without it. The Economic Report of the President estimates the stimulus has already saved or created 1.5 million to 2 million jobs, and is on track to save 3.5 million by the end of this year. We gave President Obama aHalf Truewhen he claimed in his State of the Union address that the stimulus has already saved or created 2 million jobs, because that was on the high side of projections from his Council of Economic Advisers, the independent Congressional Budget Office and several other reputable economic forecasters. But we should note all of those forecasters put the number north of 1 million jobs.In other words, just because the unemployment rate may stay at a whopping 10 percent, doesn't mean that the stimulus didn't prevent an even worse catastrophe, Burtless said.As for the last bit of Boehner's statement, we gave aBarely Trueto House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and other Republicans who have continued to claim that Obama promised the stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent. That was a forecast based on where the unemployment rate was expected to go without a stimulus. That forecast was in line with other independent forecasts at the time, but proved overly optimistic, as Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged again in a press conference on Feb. 11, 2010.So Boehner is correct that the president's economic report forecasts the unemployment rate will remain at 10 percent through this year (even as jobs are added). But again, when Boehner cites that statistic as proof that the stimulus is having no immediate effect on jobless rates as promised, it ignores the possibility that if not for the stimulus the unemployment rate might be even worse. Many economic forecasters believe that's exactly the case. Still, projections about the number of jobs saved or created by the stimulus are just that, projections. And many economists believe it is still way too early to measure its effectiveness. But we think it's misleading to simply point to a stagnant unemployment rate as proof that the stimulus isn't working. And so we rate Boehner's statement Mostly True. Ted Cruz of Texas recently declared that his campaigns fundraising is astonishing and suggested thats a surprise to the Washington chattering class and maybe even former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, another Republican bidding for president. Sen. Cruz, appearing in Houston Oct. 26, 2015, to accept endorsements from statewide elected Republicans including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, celebrated how much hes raised in Texas and in general. He made us wonder with mention of the Texas-born Bush, whos trying to become the third member of his family to win the White House. Cruz said: And we finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, $3.5 million more than the Jeb Bush campaign. Cruz added that if hed predicted such an outcome relative to Bush six months before, reporters would have laughed aloud. Early in 2015,Bush drew headlinesfor raising money at a vigorous clip. No giggling here. But was Cruz right about his campaign having the biggest pile of cash on hand and exceeding Bushs balance by $3.5 million? Campaign vs. campaign, you bet your cacti. But throw in money raised by PACs and Super PACs devoted to individual candidates and it could be theres far more money stowed away to boost Bush. Then again, PAC fundraising updates wont be filed until 2016. Campaign vs. campaign To our inquiry, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier emailed us a list indicating that Cruzs campaign ended the years third quarter, June through September 2015, with more cash on hand than any other Republican aspirant. Separately, we fetched a Federal Election Commissionsummary, dated Oct. 19, 2015, stating that through September 2015, Cruzs campaign had nearly $13.8 million cash on hand. And Cruzs balance, according to the document, exceeded the cash on hand of any of 15 other listed current or former Republican presidential candidates. At No. 2, retired surgeon Ben Carson had nearly $11.3 million cash on hand, according to the summary, followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with nearly $11 million and Bush with nearly $10.3 million. To be precise, per Cruzs claim in Houston, Bushs cash on hand of $10,271,129 was a little more than $3.5 million less than Cruzs $13,778,904. Were not saying here that Cruz outraised everyone. According toanother FEC summary, also dated Oct. 19, 2015, Carson raised some $31 million through September 2015, outpacing Cruzs nearly $27 million and Bushs nearly $25 million. Businessman Donald Trump, who has led many Republican voter polls, reported a scant $254,773 cash on hand through the third quarter. But Trump, who's wealthy, also has declared plans to self-fund his candidacy. Maybe how much cash he has on hand isnt significant. Also,Politico notedOct. 15, 2015, Trump fielded about $3.7 million in donations in the third quarter. Notably too, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each ended the quarter having raised more money and also having more cash on hand than any Republican. Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state, had nearly $33 million on hand, according to the FEC, and Sanders, a Vermont senator, had $27.1 million. PACs and Super PACs Theres another wrinkle if you consider how much money PACs and Super PACs devoted to candidates may have in cash on hand. According to achartbuilt by the New York Times, last updated Oct. 16, 2015, Bush-backing PACs and Super PACs had $98.2 million cash on hand through June 2015. In contrast, Cruz PACs and Super PACs had $37.5 million cash on hand. We dont see a path to more recent balances; a footnote to the Times chart says most of these groups arent required to file an updated report until Jan. 31, 2016. Separately, the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending,posted a chartin October 2015 showing Bush PACs and Super PACs fielding far more money than any other hopeful, again with information limited to what such groups had reported through June 2015:               SOURCE: Web post,Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and Outside Groups,Center for Responsive Politics, last updated Oct. 27, 2015 (accessed the same day) The chart is preceded by explanatory text: The modern presidential campaign isn't a single organization. Yes, there's always an official campaign committee. But for every White House candidate, there is usually at least one super PAC or other outside organization devoted to getting him or her elected. These groups can solicit unlimited donations and later use them to pummel rivals  or, as seems to be the case this cycle, take on some of the duties traditionally handled by a campaign, such as organizing town hall meetings or doing voter outreach. The explanation continues: Outside groups aren't allowed to coordinate with official campaign committees, but they're often run by friends and former staffers  even family members  of the candidate they're helping. Overall, as of the middle of 2015, single-candidate super PACs in the presidential race had raised more money than the candidates themselves. But that wasn't true among Democrats, whose potential nominees raised more than the super PACs supporting them. Frazier of Cruzs camp agreed by email it could be that money accumulated to promote Bushs candidacy still runs ahead of funds raised for Cruzs cause. Regardless, she reminded, Cruz limited his Houston claim to funds raised by campaigns alone. Our ruling Cruz said his campaign finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, three and a half million dollars more than the Jeb Bush campaign. This is all so, though Bush still might remain ahead (perhaps way ahead) in money accumulated on behalf of a Republican. We wont know how much total cash has been stashed to help each candidate until PACs report again in 2016. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  E-mail reproduces interview with documentary filmmaker Pierre Rehov about the psychology of terrorism. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] The Psychology Behind Suicide Bombings By Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based oninterviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.  Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film? A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up. Q - Why is this film especially important? A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude. Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil.  Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution. Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what theybelieve to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy. Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They thereforeexperience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.  Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise. Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do. Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderateMuslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of theProphecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists. Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior. Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations throughdifferent networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel). Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide. Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men? A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman? Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a dooropen by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. hasmaintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred"). Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean. A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it. Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people. Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East? A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Origins:  Pierre Rehov is an Algerian-born filmmaker (his family left Algeria for France in 1961, when he was nine years old) who has Pierre Rehov  produced a number of documentaries about the Middle East, primarily focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the wake of the 7 July 2005 terrorist bombings in London, he made a number of appearances on television news programs to discuss the causes and nature of terrorism and his experiences in producing films about the subject.  Those appearances included a 15 July 2005 interview for MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, the text of which is reproduced above. documentaries bombings appearances Connected We haven't yet been able to obtain a transcript of the 15 July 2005 Connected program, so we can't guarantee that what is reproduced above is a 100% complete and accurate reproduction of Pierre Rehov's interview.  However, we have verified that he was interviewed on Connected that day, that the substance of his remarks matched what is contained in the e-mail quoted at the head of this page, and that he offered substantially similar comments on other news programs around the same time as his Connected appearance. comments Last updated:  17 August 2006    Sources:   CNN Live Saturday.   "The Psychology of a Suicide Bomber."   CNN.com.  23 July 2005. In June 2017, fake news web site React365 posted a captioned photo of a shark fin peeking out of a body of water with the headline "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake": fake posted   Slight though it was, the page got a lot of play on social media  partly, we hope, in recognition of its humorous intent. A nine-foot-long bull shark was not, in fact, found in Kentucky Lake, a man-made reservoir along the western borders of Kentucky and Tennessee. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Services made that clear in a sternly worded Facebook post dated 27 June 2017: React365 is a web site that provides users with tools to create their own fake news stories, and share them via Facebook and Twitter: React365  A grammatically challenged disclaimer on the site claims its purpose is entertainment:   React365 users sometimes copy and repost the same material with minor changes to localize or personalize a joke in hopes of garnering shares on social media. Examples include: Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia, Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River, and Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River. For that matter, ersatz shark sightings are a perennial favorite on fake news web sites and social media generally. For example, we've previously debunked: Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River, Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes, and Photo of a Baby Great White Shark. Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes Photo of a Baby Great White Shark Sticklers for detail will have noticed that the image shared with the React365 post does not depict the fin of a freshwater bull shark, but that of a great white shark instead. The image, normally credited to UC Davis, has been used all over the Internet for the past seven years or more, including in actual news stories. actual ABC7 News. "More than a Ton of Illegal Shark Fins Seized in San Francisco."
 14 February 2014. React365. "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake."
 26 June 2017. During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.