Our businesses have created jobs every single month since (Obamacare) became law.
President Barack Obama touted the success of Obamacare during his final State of the Union address. He said the Affordable Care Act has led to nearly 18 million more people gaining health insurance and has helped to slow health care cost inflation. He added that the law didnt destroy the job market,despite pessimistic predictionsfrom critics. Our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law, Obama said on Capitol Hill on Jan. 12, 2016. We hadnt heard that particular Obamacare talking point before, so we decided to take a look. Because Obama referred specifically to our businesses, we looked atprivate-sector employment datafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting in March 2010, when Obama signed theAffordable Care Act. Of the 70 months since, Obama is correct that every single one has seen positive job growth. Thats a record for uninterrupted job growth, according to our friends at theWashington PostFact Checker. This graph from BLS shows monthly change in private-sector job growth (in thousands) since the start of 2010:  From early 2010 on, the data is above the zero line, showing positive job growth. The fact that the country has gained jobs despite the health care law also might not assuage critics argument that job growth, and other aspects of the economy, would have been stronger absent the law. For example, in aJanuary 2015 fact-check, we found that the law might have caused many thousands of employees to have their hours cut from full-time to part-time. But independent studies havent backed up claims that the law would end up reducing employment. In 2011, we rated a claim from former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., that Obamacare is job killingFalse. Former Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in 2014 that Obamacare is expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs. We rated that claimMostly False. Our ruling Obama said, Our businesses have created jobs every single month since (Obamacare) became law. The private sector has seen job growth every single month since Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Theres room for argument over what the growth would have looked like absent the health care law, but Obamas statistic is on target. We rate this claim True.
Claim:  Dee Lee penned a screed opining that blacks 'don't read.' INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2002]  Blacks Don't Read This is very deep, and unfortunately, very true! This is a heavvvvy piece and a Caucasian wrote it. THEY ARE STILL OUR SLAVESWe can continue to reap profits from the Blacks without the effort of physical slavery. Look at the current methods of containment that they use on themselves: IGNORANCE, GREED, and SELFISHNESS.  Their IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment. A great man once said, "The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book." We live now in the Information Age. They have gained the opportunity to read any book on any subject through the efforts of their fight for freedom, yet they refuse to read.  There are numerous books readily available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com, not to mention their own Black Bookstores that provide solid blueprints to reach economic equality (which should have been their fight all along), but few read consistently, if at all.  GREED is another powerful weapon of containment.  Blacks, since the abolition of slavery, have had large amounts of money at their disposal. Last year they spent 10 billion dollars during Christmas, out of their 450 billion dollars in total yearly income (2.22%). Any of us can use them as our target market, for any business venture we care to dream up, no matter how outlandish, they will buy into it. Being primarily a consumer people, they function totally by greed. They continually want more, with little  thought for saving or investing. They would rather buy some new sneaker than invest in starting a business. Some even neglect their children to have the latest Tommy or FUBU. And they still think that having a Mercedes, and a big house gives the "Status" or that they have achieved the American Dream.  They are fools! The vast majority of their people are still in poverty because their greed holds them back from collectively making better communities. With the help of BET, and the rest of their black media that often broadcasts destructive images into their own homes, we will continue to see huge profits like those of Tommy and Nike.  (Tommy Hilfiger has even jeered them, saying he doesn't want their money, and  look at how the fools spend more with him than ever before!). They'll continue to show off to each other while we build solid communities with the profits from our businesses that we market to them.  SELFISHNESS, ingrained in their minds through slavery, is one of the  major ways we can continue to contain them. One of their own, Dubois said that there was an innate division in their culture. A "Talented Tenth" he called it. He was correct in his deduction that there are segments of their culture that has achieved some "form" of success. However, that segment missed the fullness of his work. They didn't read that the "Talented Tenth" was then responsible to aid the Non-Talented Ninety Percent in achieving a better life. Instead, that segment has created another class, a Buppie class that looks down on their people or aids them in a condescending manner. They will never achieve what we have. Their selfishness does not allow them to be able to work together on any project or endeavor of substance. When they do get together, their selfishness lets their egos get in the way of the goal. Their so-called help organizations seem to only want to promote their name without making any real change in their community. They are content to sit in conferences and conventions in our hotels, and talk about what they will do, while they award plaques to the best speakers, not the best doers. Is there no end to their selfishness? They steadfastly refuse to see that "TOGETHER EACH ACHIEVES MORE (TEAM)! They do not understand that they are no better than each other because of what they own. In fact, most of those Buppies are but one or two paychecks away from poverty. All of which is under the control of our pens in our offices and our boardrooms.  Yes, will continue to contain them as long as they refuse to read, continue to buy anything they want, and keep thinking they are "helping" their communities by paying dues to organizations which do little other than hold lavish conventions in our hotels.  By the way, don't worry about any of them reading this letter, remember,  'THEY DON'T READ!!!!'  (Prove them wrong. Please pass this on!) Origins:  Our earliest sighting of this polemic which excoriates "buppies" and other blacks for their presumed lack of literacy and bling-motivated consumer choices dates to October 2001, when it appeared as an unattributed item in the New York Beacon, a newspaper that focuses on African-American issues. It subsequently arrived in our inbox in January 2002 prefaced by the claim that it had been  written by a Caucasian. In October 2002 we began receiving versions stating radio personality Dee Lee had read the item on air that morning on a New York station. (A "buppie," says the Urban Dictionary, is "A highly sophisticated and upper class black person. Usually a black city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle: b[lack] + [y]uppie.") buppie While the question of who wrote the piece remains murky, we can rule out two people who have often been erroneously pointed to as its author. Radio personality Dee Lee, then of Philadelphia's Power 99 FM's "Dream Team" and Saint Louis' 100.3 "The Dee Lee Morning Show," firmly asserts he is neither the item's author nor did he ever read the piece on air. He said in a 28 January 2007 blog post that "I NEVER wrote nor read this article on NYC radio!!," adding that he "would in no way write or support such ignorance, especially degrading my own race." Dee Lee blog post Likely as a result of African-American radio jock Dee Lee's name having become attached to the screed, a Caucasian certified financial planner of the same name has been mistakenly pointed to as the source of the item. (The Internet-circulated piece, after all, always contained the claim that it had been written by a white person.) Dee Lee of Harvard Financial Educators, author of numerous books in the financial planning field, including Let's Talk Money, has seen the piece circulated with not only her name and business affiliation attached, but also her e-mail address and photo. She emphatically denies any association with the screed, stating "I did not author nor did I read the article in question on the radio." denies Although the actual author of the piece is still unknown to us, Dr. Arthur Lewin of the Black and Hispanics Studies Department at Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York claims to have edited the article into its present form many years ago and titled it "They Are Still Our Slaves." However, pointing to him as the original author of the piece is problematic, given that he claims his involvement was limited to editing an item titled "How to Make an Economic or Ghetto Slave" into "They Are Still Our Slaves," which he states he "received" (but not how or from whom). As to what to make of the item, some analysts have expressed doubt that it was penned by a white racist, instead finding in the text reason to believe it the work of an African-American laboring to make a point. Said Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Besides its didacticism, this letter is full of the racial self-loathing that permeates much so-called 'uplift' literature these days. There is no substantive critique of a community's behavior here. It relies on stereotypes to make what are, at best, questionable points. It was, in all likelihood, written by a black person who was trying a little too hard to be 'deep' and righteous." Barbara "deeply disturbing" Mikkelson Last updated:  22 June 2010    Smokes, Saundra.  "E-Mail Decries Slave Mentality."   The [Syracuse] Post-Standard.  1 December 2002  (p. C2).    The New York Beacon.  "Negativity or a Wake-Up Call: They Are Still Our Slaves."   17 October 2001. In May 2021, numerous media outlets reported that U.S. President Joe Bidens administration would be waiving sanctions on vessels, corporate entities and the CEO of Nord Stream AG, an international consortium of five major companies overseeing the construction of Russias Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany. However, the administration still expressed opposition to the construction of the pipeline. The claim was originally reported by the news website Axios on May 20, 2021. In the original report, the publication cited two sources who had been briefed on the decision. Axios Snopes contacted the State Department and was told the agency had submitted a report to Congress on May 19 saying the U.S. was lifting sanctions on five entities, four vessels, and Nord Stream 2 AG CEO Matthias Warnig. Unknown at the time of this writing was which specific entities would be waived. These sanctions were currently required under the Protecting Europes Energy Security Act (PEESA).  PEESA Nord Stream 2 is a wide pipeline network of offshore natural gas lines that run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. The pipelines have largely been opposed by the U.S. and some European nations that believe their creation would increase Russias influence in the region. Under PEESA, the U.S. is granted the authority to advance national security and foreign policy objectives, in particular, to address Russian pipeline projects that use coercive purposes and create risks to U.S. national security, threaten Europes energy security, and that could endanger Europes political and economic welfare. Nord Stream 2 PEESA  Map of the proposed Nord Stream 2. Samuel Bailey/Public Domain  Samuel Bailey/Public Domain   Russia uses its energy export pipelines to create national and regional dependencies on Russian energy supplies, leveraging these dependencies to expand its political, economic, and military influence, weaken European security, and undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, wrote the Bureau of Energy Resources in an April 9 statement. These pipelines also reduce European energy diversification, and hence weaken European energy security. statement A spokesperson for the State Department referred our team to this statement written by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on May 19, 2021. this statement I have determined that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO Matthias Warnig, and Nord Stream 2 AGs corporate officers, wrote Blinken. Todays actions demonstrate the Administrations commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the Presidents pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe. While the Biden administration supported waiving sanctions on some elements associated with Nord Stream AG, the administration maintained its opposition to construction of Nord Stream 2  and that seemed at odds with statements made by Blinken during his Jan. 19 nomination hearing, when he said the administration would do whatever we can to prevent that completion of Nord Stream 2. Jan. 19 nomination hearing, Sanctions are placed on companies that the U.S. determines meet certain criteria/specifications that suggest a danger to national security. The State Department, in conjunction with the Biden administration, can also determine when they want to waive  or temporarily pause the application of  such sanctions. Blinken said that the administration would continue to oppose the completion of the project that it acknowledged would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine, the Eastern flank NATO, and EU countries. However, the sanctions that were waived  not lifted, as some media reports claimed  allowed for the continuation of various transactions and activities involving the Marine Rescue Service, which are unrelated to Nord Stream 2 construction. These activities include a range of search and rescue, environmental, and other missions. Issuance of this waiver also provides space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security, an official with the State Department told Snopes in an interview. In the statement sent to Snopes, Blinken reiterated that the administration would continue to oppose completion of the project. Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering, Blinken continued. Though we may not always agree, our alliances remain strong, and our position is in line with our commitment to strengthen our Transatlantic relationships as a matter of national security. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. In December 2015, a picture purportedly showing a dog that had been badly burned while rescuing a family from a fire started circulating on social media: circulating   This image does not capture a dog who was badly burned while rescuing its family from a fire (or injured through any other means). The photograph shows a dog with a piece of ham on its face. While this may seem obvious to some viewers, several people liked and shared the above-displayed Facebook post as if it were a genuine item. Stephen Roseman, the Facebook user who posted the infamous image, admitted that the story was fake in the comment section below his post: People, people this isn't even my dog, I found this picture on fascistbook, stole it, and decided to use it in a prank to fool these religitards So I did, and low and behold idiots left and right fall for it, and those that didn't, seem to think they have a superior intelligence or something, for pointing out the obvious Keep in mind, I never told a single soul to like this, that is their choice, I don't give a f*ck either way. The image, in other words, was initially shared specifically to poke fun at both the people who tend to share "1 like = 1 prayer" messages on social media sites, and at the people who would subsequently point out that it was a joke. On 13 February 2019, NASA announced that the mission of a robotic rover named Opportunity had come to an end after the device had spent 15 years exploring the surface of Mars: announced One of the most successful and enduring feats of interplanetary exploration, NASA's Opportunity rover mission is at an end after almost 15 years exploring the surface of Mars and helping lay the groundwork for NASA's return to the Red Planet. The Opportunity rover stopped communicating with Earth when a severe Mars-wide dust storm blanketed its location in June 2018. After more than a thousand commands to restore contact, engineers in the Space Flight Operations Facility at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) made their last attempt to revive Opportunity, to no avail. The solar-powered rover's final communication was received June 10. As the online world mourned the loss of the famous Martian explorer, many social media users started sharing a quote that supposedly constituted Oppy's final transmission to NASA: "My battery is low and its getting dark."  This quote quickly made its way around the Internet, shared by celebrities, reporters, and social media influencers. Some people also created tributes to Opportunity that featured the rover's alleged final transmission: influencers   Although many individuals and news outlets cited these words as if they constituted a verbatim reproduction of Opportunity's final transmission, the phrase was not a literal reproduction of the robotic rover's last statement. news outlets The quote originated with a Twitter thread about Oppy's demise by posted by KPCC science reporter Jacob Margolis. At one point, Margolis said the rover's final transmission "basically" translated as "my battery is low and it's getting dark": thread basically   This quote quickly escaped the context of Margolis' Twitter thread, however, and started to circulate as if he were relaying a verbatim message from the Mars rover. On 16 February 2019, Margolis published an article on The LAist website explaining how his words came to be taken out of context: The LAist My tweet is an interpretation of what two scientists from the Mars Exploration Rover Mission told me. Deputy Project Scientist Abigail Fraeman spoke about what it was like when they realized the June [2018] dust storm was going to be particularly bad, and that Oppy's life was in danger. They told it to conserve energy. "It's hard, because you know [the storm's] coming ... but there's nothing you can do to stop it," Fraeman said. "By Thursday, we knew that it was bad. And then by Friday, we knew it was really bad, but there was nothing we could do but watch. And then it was Sunday, we actually got a communication from the rover and we were shocked," she said. "It basically said we had no power left, and that was the last time we heard from it." John Callas, the project manager, offered another poignant detail about the final communication with Oppy: "It also told us the skies were incredibly dark, to the point where no sunlight gets through. It's night time during the day." "We were hopeful that the rover could ride it out. That the rover would hunker down, and then when the storm cleared, the rover would charge back up," he said. "That didn't happen. At least it didn't tell us that it happened. So, we don't know." When NASA announced the completion of Opportunity's mission in February 2019, the Mars rover hadn't communicated with the space agency since the previous June. The solar-powered Opportunity was low on power when one of the largest dust storms observed on Mars engulfed the planet and, essentially, turned "day into night," as the Planetary Society wrote:  communicated Planetary Society On June 20th, NASA announced the storm had gone global. To be more accurate, it evolved into a planetary-encircling dust event (PEDE), lofting enough dust into the atmosphere to completely blanket the planet and block out the Sun. In other words, the Red Planet and most all its features were hidden from most orbiting instruments beneath an opaque, beige dust cloud. The atmospheric scientists taking measurements with instruments on the orbiters were soon blocked out. Oppy sent its final message from the surface of Mars on 10 June 2018: final message Opportunity downlinked what would turn out to be her final message from Mars on June 10, 2018. The bare bones contents of that missive informed her crew that a monster dust storm was lifting dust all around Endeavour Crater and was turning day into night there. Minutes later, the solar-powered robot field geologist presumably shut down and went into a kind of hibernation mode to wait out the storm. NASA attempted to communicate with Opportunity many times after the storm passed, but the rover never responded:  Margolis, Jacob.  "How a Tweet About The Mars Rover Dying Blew Up on the Internet and Made People Cry."
  The LAist.  16 February 2019. Rayl, A.J.S.  "The Mars Exploration Rovers Update: Opportunity Sleeps as Storm Chasers Study Planet-Encircling Dust Cloud."
  Planetary Society.  4 July 2018. Rayl, A.J.S.  "The Mars Exploration Rovers Update Special Report: NASA Declares Opportunity and MER Mission Complete."
  Planetary Society.  14 February 2019. NASA.  "NASA's Opportunity Rover Mission on Mars Comes to End."
  13 February 2019. Anad unveiled Oct. 15, 2010, by Democrat Jack Conway so angered his opponent for a Kentucky Senate seat, Republican Rand Paul, that Paulrefused to shake handsafter a debate two days later.The primary reason for the bad blood was the charge in Conway's ad that Paul, as a college student at Baylor University, had participated in some unorthodox activities, according to an account inGQ.Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax' -- that was banned from mocking Christianity and Christ? said the ad's narrator. Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was 'Aqua Buddha? 'The ad provoked outrage in the Paul camp, and even some liberal commentators protested.The New Republic'sJonathan Chait called itthe ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year for coming perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office, an idea that Chait called a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.Because the most salacious details of theGQstory were provided by a woman who requested anonymity, we're not going to attempt to fact-check that part of the story. But the ad does contain two policy-focused claims. We'll turn our focus on those instead.After the reference to the Aqua Buddha story, the ad asks, Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?We thought we'd take a look.The Paul campaign did not return a telephone inquiry, so we reviewed the sources cited in the ad.To back up the first claim -- that Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives -- the ad citedthe June 20, 2008, edition of a public-affairs television showcalledKentuckyTonight. Paul was one of four guests invited to join an hour-long discussion of the Kentucky state budget.At one point -- it's about 70 percent of the way through the video -- the conversation turns to state budget cuts and the intersection of church-related charity work with state support for social services. Paul offers a note of caution.You mentioned faith-based intermingling -- government and faith-based, Paul said. George (W.) Bush did that, and I think it was a horrible mistake. One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is, and it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn't have tax money flowing into churches. We should let churches do charity work, and that's wonderful, but they shouldn't be corrupted with government money.This seems to be a pretty clear statement of Paul's views on the subject. The only potential complication we see with the ad's wording is that Paul's statement onKentuckyTonightwas focused on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It's possible to envision a partnership between the federal government and a religious group that doesn't involve money, but we think it's reasonable to assume that most would. So the ad's claim seems pretty accurate to us.On the second point -- that Paul would end the deduction for religious charities -- the ad cites an Associated Press account. The AP actually ran a half-dozen stories beginning on Oct. 12, 2010, that addressed Paul's support for a national sales tax. The tale gets a bit complicated, so bear with us.On Oct. 12, the AP quoted Paul saying, The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us. The story attributed the quote to a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign. TheFair Taxwould eliminatethe federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Eliminating the federal income tax would also eliminate deductions such as tax deductions for donations to religious charities. Bills proposing to make that change, which have come up annually for years in Congress, have all failed to progress to a full hearing. Nonetheless, Democrats have used the Fair Tax as the basis for many ads against Republicans this year, one of which we recently ratedHalf True.One day later, Paul began to walk back the comment. The AP reported that Paul, a limited-government advocate, said he supports a 'simpler tax code' but wouldn't offer specifics about his written comments to an anti-tax group supporting repeal of the 16th Amendment that created the federal income tax. 'I haven't really been saying anything like that,' Paul told reporters following a speech in Henderson as part of his Kentucky bus tour. 'I think it's probably better to go ... with what I'm saying on the campaign trail. 'On Oct. 14, theOwensboro Messenger-Inquirerinterviewed Paul before a rally. Paul told the paper that he is for tax reform in general but hasn't committed to the Fair Tax. I'd like to flatten the income tax, Paul said. The church doesn't ask for more than 10 percent of your income.On Oct. 15, Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, told the AP that a tax reform activist -- former Paul campaign manager David Adams -- had distributed the statement that was the basis for the original AP story, and in so doing, distorted Paul's views on the Fair Tax. Our campaign respects the Fair Taxation movement, but the Kentucky coordinator got a little overzealous promoting his cause and created a statement that does not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's views, Benton said in a statement to the AP. Rand knows our tax code is broken and will fight for fundamental reform that both simplifies the system and reduces the financial burden for all Kentuckians. Dr. Paul will study and consider all plans that attempt to do so.The Oct. 15 AP story noted that Adams had said he distributed the statement only after receiving permission from Benton and that Benton had personally verified the statement to the AP for its initial story.Finally, on Oct. 16, the AP reported the existence of a video from a campaign event in February in which Paul told Americans for Fair Taxation volunteer Terry Schmitt, I'm in favor of any change in the tax code that reduces the overall tax burden. That would include the Fair Tax, changing to a sales tax. One great advantage of it would be no more IRS, no more income tax, no more reams of paper that we all have to deal with.This series of explanations suggests that Paul is backtracking to avoid being associated with a policy proposal that could be unpopular among some voters. But even if he does seem ambivalent, we think there's enough evidence to justify the Conway camp's claim that Paul did support the Fair Tax, at least at one point. That said, we think the Conway ad is somewhat misleading in its description of Paul's views. We don't see evidence that Paul made the religious-charity exemption a target of his opposition. His opposition, such as it was, would have been part of his support for a broader, fundamental tax overhaul. So we think Conway's decision to focus on this narrow aspect of the Fair Tax is misleading.All told, then, Conway is close to accurate on both claims but with a slight exaggeration on the question of religious tax exemptions. Keeping in mind that we're not rating the Aqua Buddha portion of the ad, we rate the two policy statements Mostly True. Claim:  Diet Coke (or Diet Pepsi) contains more calories than claimed, but the company gets away with the deception by paying a yearly fine.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] There was an old rumour that stated that a particular diet soda company (Coke I believe) paid a fine to print their cans as stating that the soda had 'just one calorie'.  According to the rumour, companies who knowingly printed misinformation on the nutritional facts of their product would have to pay a fine.  The company in question figured it could make more money by convincing people the product only had 1 calorie than it would cost to pay the fine, meaning a higher profit margin for them.  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I heard a rumor today that Diet Coke actually contains 40 calories, and the Coca-Cola company pays a huge fine to the FDA every year to keep "0 calories" on the can.  Have you heard anything of this?  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Comment: Is it true that Pepsi One is really not one calorie and that Pepsi Co. pays a fine every year for false advertising (because the calorie count is a lot higher than that)? Origins:  How long this particular belief about low-calorie sodas has been around is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it dating back to 1990. We've encountered claims of Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (which are listed as containing zero, zero, and one calories per 12-oz. can, respectively) actually containing 25, 50, 70, or 90 calories, in each case with the parent   company's paying an annual fine to continue falsely listing the beverage's caloric content.  (A can of non-diet cola typically contains about 120 calories.) The rumor associates most strongly with Diet Coke (which is known as Coca-Cola Light outside the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain).  In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place. Federal Trade Commission Act Lanham Act Common sense should also serve to rule out what the whispers say about an annual payoff.  For health reasons, many potential consumers of diet drinks have to carefully monitor what they ingest. Were the rumor true, diabetics with a love of Diet Coke, for instance, would experience glucose levels spiraling out of control. Imagine the lawsuits resulting from  that! This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria. bananas If there is the tiniest bit of truth to this rumor, it's that even though sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are advertised as having zero calories, they do have some caloric content from ingredients such as artificial sweeteners, citric acid, and caramel coloring.  However, the number of calories per can is still less than one, and FDA regulations allow any food product that contains fewer than five calories per serving to be advertised as calorie-free. Barbara "calorie countered" Mikkelson Last updated:  26 August 2013 In August 2018, a number of social media users came across an image offering a purported newspaper clipping of an article entitled "Tech Billionaire Parenting" and wondered if the article, as well as the information contained within it, was genuine: image   This image presents a slightly paraphrased version of an article written by Alice Thomson entitled "Help Kids to Kick Social Media Addiction" which was published in The Times of London in March 2018, the original text of which read as follows: The Times The philanthropist Melinda Gates told me the same. Her children dont have smartphones and only use a computer in the kitchen. Her husband Bill, the Microsoft co-founder, spends hours in his office reading books while everyone else is refreshing their homepage. The most sought-after private school in Silicon Valley, the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, bans technical devices for the under-11s and teaches the children of eBay, Apple, Uber and Google staff to make go-karts, knit and cook. Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg wants his daughters to read Dr Seuss books and play outside rather than use Messenger Kids. Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home. Its astonishing if you think about it: the more money you make out of the tech industry, the more you appear to shield your family from its effects. The general theme of this article, that several prominent tech billionaires advocated limiting their children's use of technology, is accurate and supported by various interviews and articles. Our only quibble is with the claim that Bill and Melinda Gates' children don't currently have smartphones. As far as we can tell, the Microsoft moguls didn't allow their children to possess smartphones of their own until they reached the age of 14, but as of this writing Jennifer, Rory, and Phoebe Gates are all now over the age of 14. In a June 2018 interview with The Mirror, Bill Gates explained some of his parental rules when it came to technology use by his children: The Mirror We often set a time after which there is no screen time and in their case that helps them get to sleep at a reasonable hour. Youre always looking at how it can be used in a great way  homework and staying in touch with friends  and also where it has gotten to excess. We dont have cellphones at the table when we are having a meal, we didnt give our kids cellphones until they were 14 and they complained other kids got them earlier. Melinda Gates also penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in August 2017 in which she warned about putting a computer in a child's pocket at too early of an age. Gates seemed to acknowledge that her children had cellphones at the time but said that she "probably would have waited longer" if she had the chance to do it again: Washington Post Still, as a mother who wants to make sure her children are safe and happy, I worry. And I think back to how I might have done things differently. Parents should decide for themselves what works for their family, but I probably would have waited longer before putting a computer in my childrens pockets. Phones and apps arent good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who dont yet have the emotional tools to navigate lifes complications and confusions, they can exacerbate the difficulties of growing up: learning how to be kind, coping with feelings of exclusion, taking advantage of freedom while exercising self-control. Its more important than ever to teach empathy from the very beginning, because our kids are going to need it. As for the remainder of the text at the head of this page, it appears wholly accurate. A number of Silicon Valley parents truly do send their children to the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, where an emphasis is placed on pen and paper rather than digital screens. News outlets such as the New York Times and the Guardian have reported on that school's technology policy in relation to the student body's connection to Silicon Valley: New York Times Guardian The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. But the schools chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools dont mix. This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans. The web site for the Waldorf School of the Peninsula also includes a page in which they describe their "Media & Technology Philosophy": page Waldorf educators believe it is far more important for students to interact with one another and their teachers, and work with real materials than to interface with electronic media or technology. By exploring the world of ideas, participating in the arts, music, movement and practical activities, children develop healthy, robust bodies, balanced and well-integrated brains, confidence in their real-world practical skills and strong executive-function capabilities. In the high school curriculum, Waldorf embraces technology in ways that enhance the learning process, by using it as a tool, rather than replace the role of the teacher. Students quickly master technology, and many Waldorf graduates have gone on to successful careers in the computer industry. The claim that "Steve Jobss children had strict limits on how much technology they used at home" is supported by a 2014 New York Times article which labeled the Apple founder a low-tech parent: article [N]othing shocked me more than something Mr. Jobs said to me in late 2010 after he had finished chewing me out for something I had written about an iPad shortcoming. So, your kids must love the iPad? I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The companys first tablet was just hitting the shelves. They havent used it, he told me. We limit how much technology our kids use at home. Im sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobss household was like a nerds paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests like chocolates on a pillow. Nope, Mr. Jobs told me, not even close. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's reported desire to have his daughter read Dr. Seuss and play outside comes from an open letter he wrote after the birth of his second daughter in August 2017: letter But rather than write about growing up, we want to talk about childhood. The world can be a serious place. Thats why its important to make time to go outside and play. You will be busy when youre older, so I hope you take time to smell all the flowers and put all the leaves you want in your bucket now. I hope you read your favorite Dr. Seuss books so many times you start inventing your own stories about the Vipper of Vipp. I hope you ride the carousel with Max until youve tamed every color horse. I hope you run as many laps around our living room and yard as you want. And then I hope you take a lot of naps. I hope youre a great sleeper. And I hope even in your dreams you can feel how much we love you. Gates, Melinda.  "Melinda Gates: I Spent My Career in Technology. I Wasnt Prepared for Its Effect on My Kids."
  The Washington Post.  24 August 2017. Richtel, Matt.  "A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Compute."
  The New York Times.  22 October 2011. Bilton, Nick.  "Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent."
  The New York Times.  10 September 2014. Jenkin, Matthew.  "Tablets Out, Imagination In: The Schools That Shun Technology."
  The Guardian.  2 December 2015. Abramson, Alana.  "'Childhood Is Magical.' Read the Letter Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan Wrote to Their Baby Daughter."
  Fortune.  28 August 2017. Stillman, Jessica.  "Why Steve Jobs and Bill Gates Both Severely Limited Their Kids' Tech Use."
  Inc.  29 October 2017. In early March, the price of oil shot up rapidly in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and the United States decision to ban imports of Russian energy. Coupled with inflation, increased labor costs and other factors that had already raised the price of gasoline, drivers in the U.S. quickly saw much higher prices at the pump. By March 14, the price of oil started todrop, but gasoline prices have been slow to follow, prompting some social media users to make comparisons to 2008 and accuse oil and gas companies of price gouging. Thetermis generally used when businesses take advantage of rising demand during a crisis and charge exorbitant prices for necessities. One Facebook post claimed that the price of oil was $141.71 per barrel in June 2008 while gas cost $4.10 per gallon on average. In March 2022, the post said oil cost $99.76 per barrel, while the average price of gas was $4.32 per gallon. If youre blaming anyone but greedy oil companies for their price gouging, youve bought into propaganda that hurts you more than anyone else, theMarch 14 postsaid. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) Other posts similarly claimed that because oil prices fell and gas prices didnt, companies must be exploiting consumers. Posts with misleading claims about the relationship between the price of oil and the price of gasoline. Experts who study the price of oil and gas told PolitiFact that it takes more time for gas prices to respond to changes in crude oil costs  and noted that there are factors in 2022 that werent at play in 2008, which make direct comparisons misleading. The numbers are also cherry-picked, and the difference in pricing between 2008 and 2022 isnt as large as the post suggests. Crude oil prices are set in the global market. And the price of crude oil has the biggest impact on the price of gasoline  thats been the case for nearly all changes in retail gasoline prices in the past 35 years, said Mark Finley, afellowin energy and global oil at Rice Universitys Baker Institute for Public Policy. When Russia  the worldsthird-largestoil producer  attacked Ukraine at the end of February, the uncertainty, fear of further conflict and international efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil drove upcrude oil prices. High oil prices can quickly drive up prices at gas stations nationwide, experts said. After oil prices fall, it typically takes a while for gas prices to decrease and consumers often assume foul play even when there isnt any, said Nicole Petersen, a GasBuddy spokesperson. Gas stations lose profit when oil prices increase sharply because they cannot drastically lift gas prices due to local competition, Petersen said. Then, when oil prices fall, gas stations try to recoup any losses before lowering their prices, she said. Unique factors in each states gasoline market also affect gas prices, said Devin Gladden, a AAA spokesperson. Locally, gas stations might have contracts with gasoline dealers that lock in prices at a certain rate for set periods of time  sometimes weeks or months, he said. The March 14 Facebook postcorrectlycited the average priceof a gallon of gas that day: $4.32. But it cherry-picked its $99.76 figure for the price of crude oil. West Texas Intermediate crude oil is traditionally used as a U.S. benchmark when discussing and comparing oil prices. On March 14, WTI crude oil hit a low of $99.76, but the closing price was$103.01. Gas rose to $4.32 per gallon on March 14 as a result of oil prices being around $130 per barrel at times in the first half of March, Gladden said. The Facebook post was wrong about prices in June 2008. Themonthly averageprice of a gallon of gasoline was $4.05, and the average price ofWTI crude oilwas $133.88 per barrel, less than what the post claimed. The data set in this posting is misleading because it gives people this impression that crude prices are more stationary than they are, Gladden said. In all actuality, they are highly volatile. Posts comparing June 2008 prices to current prices also mislead because they compare a full month of data to half a month in 2022, experts said. Different global conditions are also at play. In 2008, the spike in oil and gas prices was tied to the financial crisis. The recession caused a drop in demand for gasoline, and as the economic recovery began, there was an immediate ramp-up in production to meet growing supply needs. That supply crunch, caused prices to spike, Gladden said. In March, the Russia-Ukraine conflict caused panic and speculation that contributed to the rapid price rises, Gladden said. But its also normal for prices to rise this time of year due to the demand from the spring and summer driving season, he said. In part, that will keep prices elevated even though oil prices have declined, Gladden said. Also, an ongoing truck driver shortage, increased labor costs and high inflation in the U.S. have caused gas prices to rise. On top of that, Gladden said the oil industry is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, which decreased gas prices due to decreased demand. State-level taxes on gasoline are also about 7 centshigherper gallon now than they were in2008, Finley said. A Facebook post claimed that comparing the price of oil and gas in June 2008 to March 2022 shows that oil companies are price gouging. Experts said it takes time for gas prices to respond to drops in crude oil costs, and thats not necessarily indicative of price gouging. The posts numbers are cherry-picked; the difference in prices isnt as great as it suggests. The current situation differs from 2008 because increased labor costs, the pandemic, additional taxes and inflation were all already contributing to rising gasoline prices before Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Direct comparisons lack important context, experts said. We rate these posts False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: Why are gas prices going up? RELATED:How much blame does Putin deserve for high gasoline prices? In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet   "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals:  authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine.  "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!"
  25 June 2017. Lokalo.de.  "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!'  Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An."
  17 March 2018.