Seattle Chase Wheedle
FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?  Claim: The mayor of Seattle has "launched" a new "rule" forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.   false WHAT'S   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.     WHAT'S   Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law. Examples: Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB  Warner Todd Huston (@warnerthuston) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r  EMERSON E.RODRIGUES (@EMERSON_NALITA) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx  Bunch (@bunch1243) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Origins:On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled "ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW" claiming that: article In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest. One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, theres something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and hes apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary. This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.  That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site's article "Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for Sharia-Compliant Housing Rules," which offered the following visual: article That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses.  Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles): article   For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it. Murray's housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you'd expect, including increasing the city's housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing. One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That's virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products. More and more lenders are offering Sharia-compliant financing. The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades, and analysts see potential for continued growth as the number of Muslims in the United States and Europe grows. Based on what he called "rough anecdotal evidence," Bukhari estimated a couple hundred people aren't borrowing money for houses due to their religion. He said this includes even high-wage earners, such as the more than 1,000 Muslims who work for Microsoft and more than 500 Amazon.com  employees. They could easily qualify for home loans but opt not to apply "simply because they don't want to pay interest," Bukhari said. "We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Murray said. The overall topic of Seattle-area Muslims and banking products was also addressed in another Puget Sound Business Journal article about retirement plans. According to that piece, CEO Thom Poulson of Falah Capital is working to facilitate opportunities for Muslim tech workers to access products such as 401(k)s and mortgages previously inaccessible to them due to religious barriers: article   It's estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft, and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company's retirement plan. That's because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It's almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too. "You have people who aren't getting the full benefits of their employer's offering," said Thom Polson, CEO of a new Seattle company, Falah Capital LLC, which works with Muslims to ensure they're investing while staying true to their beliefs. In partnership with Seattle-based Russell Investments and IdealRatings of San Francisco, Falah set up its first Islamic exchange traded fund (ETF) last fall. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "FIA," the Russell-IdealRatings Islamic US Large Cap Index, the ETF is the first of its kind on the exchange. Polson said a large percentage of the Muslims who work at tech firms are not using their 401(k) plans because they're not Sharia-compliant. "All of our advisory business is about addressing these needs," Polson said, adding his company is working with clients from the Muslim Association of the Puget Sound. The association has a large community center with a mosque in Redmond near Microsoft's headquarters. Next up for Fallah is a possible foray into home mortgages so clients can buy houses without taking out interest-bearing loans, which is against Sharia law. As part Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's landmark housing initiative, the city plans to work with lenders to help observant Muslims buy homes.   What these articles address are efforts to help businesses  service a significant portion of the local Seattle-area working population who are unable to utilize those business' current offerings  due to religious limitations, not to force businesses to comply with tenets of sharia law.  Mayor Murray's 13 July 2015 "Action Plan to Address Seattles Affordability Crisis" merely included a policy point of "explor[ing] the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products," not mandating that any local businesses offer such products: Action Plan  Support the Community in Finding Housing Tools for Sharia-Compliant Lending: For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law  which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money  there are limited options for financing a home. Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions. The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle.   Last updated: 17 July 2015 Originally published:  17 July 2015
A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' owing a lack sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details for the sake of trying to frame her as being irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes":  Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016. revealed The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities: op-ed I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans, and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations -- however slowly but surely. Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC.  sued Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. reported Bluestein, Greg.  "Georgia 2018: Abrams Owes More Than $50K to IRS."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 March 2018. Abrams, Stacey.  "Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me for Governor of Georgia."
  Fortune.  24 April 2018. Elliott, Richard.  "Investment Company Sues Brian Kemp Over $500K Loan."
  WSB-TV.  12 June 2018. Judd, Alan.  "For Brian Kemp, Suit Over Bad Loan Reveals Political, Financial Perils."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  21 September 2018. In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. On 14 December 2014, photographs were posted by a Facebook user along with accompanying text suggesting the pictures depicted shopping carts full of donated toys that had been returned to a Walmart store in exchange for beer and cigarettes: Ok...As I was leaving Wal-Mart at 6:30am this morning, I asked the returns clerk did someone purchase these? She responded, those were yesterday's return. I then asked the question; were these gifts? She responded that most likely all of them are gifts from organizations or toy runs. I was sick to my stomach with her next response, "folk return them, get a gift card and then buy beer and cigarettes." Be aware of your blessing to others in need. Make sure that the organization or individual is truly getting and keeping the gift, especially children. These pics are from one day of returns and the clerk said; most of time there's more. Be blessed friends...          That claim predictably caused outrage among Facebook users, with many commenters stating the situation as described confirmed their suspicions about the poor and needy. However, a number of factors suggested the claim might not be true and could therefore negatively impact initiatives to ensure children living in poverty had access to much-needed toy donations at Christmastime. First and foremost, the post presented only a single Walmart shopper's account in assessing what the images depicted. The man said he confirmed with the cashier that the items were toy returns, but whether such a conversation even took place is not independently verifiable. Then there's the matter of how retail systems are organized, particularly during the holiday season. Sorting merchandise into carts for restocking on shelves is common practice, and such sorting includes not just returns but also items moved by customers from one part of the store to another or abandoned at check-out aisles.  Such items are generally sorted by department, so busy stores are likely to be stuck with several carts per department at the end of a shift or the start of a day.  Items moved or abandoned at checkout that require refrigeration would be top priority, and items such as clothing and toys would command less urgency. So pictures of carts full of toy department items could create the false impression of a disproportionate number of returns to that department, when it's entirely possible carts full of other departments' items were just as plentiful but were left out of the frame of the photographs or had already been returned to their shelves.   And even if we were to take the tale at face value, it's still a bit hard to buy because for the cashier's claim about beer and cigarettes to be credible, we would have to assume she was in the habit of tracking customers after they returned items, carefully observing what they purchased with  gift cards or store credits.   There is also the matter of the origin of the toys. Although toys received through programs for the needy are certainly returned to stores from time to time, there's simply no way to discern which toys seen in random photographs might have been received as standard gifts from family members or friends, which toys might have been donated via Christmas drives for the needy, and which toys might have been returned simply because they proved to be unwanted or duplicate items. No explanation was provided in the Facebook post as to why the toys in the cart were assumed to have been donated ones rather than purchased or gifted toys. returned In fact, the store in question, a Walmart on Bleachery Boulevard in Asheville, North Carolina, verified that although the photographs were in fact taken at that store, "The claim the toys are all returns is 100 percent not true" and "most of the toys are items left around the store that need to be restocked,"  according to a report by Asheville television station WLOS: report The Facebook post claims donated gifts from organizations or toy runs were being returned to Walmart. The Facebook user says a store clerk told him folks returned the toys to "buy beer and cigarettes." Bill Murdock, CEO of Eblen Charities, has his doubts. "Sometimes these things kind of get out of hand. You know, somebody will make a comment or somebody will assume something and then all of the sudden it becomes the truth, whether it's the truth or not," Murdock said In an effort to reduce the chances someone will return one of the donated toys to a local store, Eblen Charities representatives have started marking over the bar codes.  Whether or not the story were in any way reflective of any factual circumstances, it would be a shame for such a claim to negatively impact much-needed toy drives right before Christmas. The tale closely matches much of the argument against food stamps and other forms of assistance for the needy and has the potential to damage efforts to supply children in need with toys at Christmas. According to Toys for Tots, demand for toys has outpaced supply in recent years, and while the scope of the program is very large, the organization is unable to fulfill all the requests it receives: Many of the gifts they provide, such as books, games and sports equipment, make a significant contribution to the educational, as well as social and recreational interests, of these children.  The program is also of immense assistance to parents who, during the holiday season, are unable to provide needed gifts for their children.  The Marine Corps fulfilled the holiday hopes and dreams of nearly 7 million less fortunate children in each of the past ten years.  While that may be a lot of children, we unfortunately ran out of gifts long before they ran out of children.  To make a credit card contribution or to find out more about the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, please go to their website at www.toysfortots.org or call the foundation at (703) 640-9433. The author urged people to verify whether toys are truly being parceled out to kids in genuine need, but most toy drives are partially or wholly anonymous in order to protect the privacy of recipients, and therefore such endeavors aren't possible without intruding upon those who receive items from those drives. In the absence of stronger evidence, there is little reason to believe the claim presented here was true, accurate, or representative of how toy drives actually operate. Brigman, Lauren.   "REALITY CHECK: Returned Toy Donations?"
  WLOS-TV.  18 December 2014. Claim:  Congress supported a bailout of AIG because that company insures the Congressional pension trust.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2009] Politicians!!!! Did you ever wonder? I couldn't figure out why would the Congress let some firms go under and then bend over backwards to help others.This makes sense now!!!!!! This sounds almost too logical...... why hasn't it gotten national press coverage? Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.? Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: "That's strange what does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?" I think I just found the answer. Among other things, AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!! No wonder they got bailed out right away! To hell with the people, let's protect our future, said all our Senators and Congressmen.  Nice to see where their loyalties lie! I'm from the government and I'm here to help myself ! Origins:  As the U.S. government began, in the latter part of 2008, to grapple with growing economic turmoil and the prospect that many large U.S. financial and corporate institutions were on the brink of failure, one of the vexing issues it confronted was which businesses it should attempt to rescue.  Should the government take over or provide direct financial assistance ("bailouts") to mortgage finance  companies (particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), or to the banking industry, or to the auto industry? One of corporate entities "bailed out" by the government was the insurance giant American International Group, commonly known as AIG.  In September 2008 the Federal Reserve (not Congress) provided AIG with an $85 billion loan in exchange for a 79.9% equity stake, and the Federal Reserve also provided another $37.8 billion loan to AIG three weeks later and subsequently gave the company access to another $20.9 billion.  (These loans were restructured in November 2008 to provide a total bailout package of over $150 billion to AIG.) Why did the government decide to assist AIG?  The item reproduced above posits that it was pure self-interest:  Supposedly Congress "bailed out" AIG because that company "insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" while supposedly allowing other financial institutions to wither and die or pushing them into "forced marriages."  (Global financial services firm Bear Stearns didn't "go under"; it was acquired by JPMorgan Chase, with assistance from the Federal Reserve, back in March 2008. In other transactions, Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual.) acquired However, AIG was more than just an ordinary "insurance company."  That firm insured the debt of other financial institutions, and government officials were greatly concerned that AIG's failure could have a cascading effect that would produce catastrophic results among the entire U.S. (and global) financial industry: What frightened Fed and Treasury officials was not simply the prospect of another giant corporate bankruptcy, but A.I.G.'s role as an enormous provider of esoteric financial insurance contracts to investors who bought complex debt securities. They effectively required A.I.G. to cover losses suffered by the buyers in the event the securities defaulted. It meant A.I.G. was potentially on the hook for billions of dollars worth of risky securities that were once considered safe. If A.I.G. had collapsed  and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims  institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of those securities, and that in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt. Small investors, including anyone who owned money market funds with A.I.G. securities, could have been hurt, too. And some insurance policy holders were worried, even though they have some protections. "It would have been a chain reaction," said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University. "The spillover effects could have been incredible." Associated Press economics writer Jeannine Aversa explained the importance of the government's decision in the wake of the AIG bailout: Q: Why is it important to keep AIG afloat? A: AIG is a global colossus, with operations in more than 130 countries. It is so interconnected with other financial firms that its problems have a jolting ripple effect both in the United States and abroad. AIG was pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in September [2008] when its credit rating was downgraded and it could not post the collateral for which it was obligated under the "credit default swap" contracts it had issued. Credit default swaps are a type of corporate debt insurance. The Fed raced to the rescue at that time to prevent AIG's failure, which could have triggered billions of dollars in losses at other banks and financial firms that bought these swaps from AIG  sending them into failure as well. As a final nail in the coffin of the "AIG insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" claim, we reproduce the following response provided to us by Charlie Armstrong, AIG's Senior Director of Advertising & Global Branding: In response to your question as to whether AIG insures the US Congressional Trust, we don't.  In fact, we've been told that no private company insures federal pensions  such a product doesn't exist.  Further, none of our financial services companies provide advisory services to Congress' pension fund.  We've explored this issue at length with our business units and have found no connection whatsoever to the fund. This rumor surfaced recently on a blog.  We're not sure who started the rumor, or why, but the rumor is baseless. The OpenSecrets web site lists Barack Obama among the many politicians from both parties who have previously received campaign contributions (not "bonus payments" or "bailout money," as is frequently reported) from AIG. campaign contributions Last updated:  18 March 2009    Aversa, Jeannine.  "Meltdown 101: Why Did the AIG Bailout Get Bigger?"   The Guardian.  12 November 2008.    Bawden, Tom.  "Citigroup Buys Debt-Hit Wachovia."   The [London] Times.  30 September 2008.    Gordon, Marcy.  "JPMorgan's WaMu Purchase Stands  Bailout or No."   The Seattle Times.  29 September 2008.    Montia, Gil.  "Bear Stearns Acquired by JPMorgan Chase for $240 Million."   Banking Times.  17 March 2008.    Ventura County Star.  "Bear Stearns Acquisition Sends Tremors Through Markets."   Banking Times.  23 March 2008. Many social media users have encountered a post showing a picture of a little girl in what looks to be a hospital bed, along with any one of several captions indicating she is awaiting a kidney transplant and will receive $1 every time her picture is shared via social media:  She gets a dollar for every pic that's shared on messenger it goes towards her kidney transplant.... you gotta share plz she is my neighbors kid The child pictured here is not awaiting the transplant of a kidney (or any other organ).  According to Click Paran, she is (as of October 2017) a four-year-old Brazilian girl named Aninha who is undergoing chemotherapy for treatment of leukemia in Paran (one of Brazil's 26 states). Click Paran This item is just another iteration of a long-running online hoax/scam entreating users to share posts and photographs under the false premise that doing so will help to secure an organ transplant or money for surgery needed by a desperately ill child. transplant money Even if no money actually changes hands in connection with these posts, the sharing of them indirectly assists scammers by driving followers, shares, and likes to their social media pages, creating popular platforms from which they can launch other fraudulent schemes. A fake tweet mocked up to look like it was written by former U.S. President Barack Obama went viral, likely because if it were real, it would have represented quite a clap back. The image, posted on March 31, 2022, is a screenshot of what looks like Obama's verified Twitter account and a tweet that states, "I think most Americans would agree that I'm a level-headed individual, not a man who's prone to indulging in conspiracy theories. I've certainly had a fair number directed at me. But has anyone checked to make sure Donald Trump doesn't have a Russian birth certificate?" posted   birther The tweet also plays on news stories that took off after Trump took office, reporting the latter's campaign had received help from the Russian government. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, Trump referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military strategy as "genius." stories referred The Obama tweet doesn't appear on his Twitter timeline, nor does it appear on PolitiWoops, a database of deleted tweets by political figures operated by the non-profit news organization ProPublica. After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020. President Barack Obamas upcoming State of the Union address gave Republicans and Democrats on the Sunday news shows another chance to make their case about the countrys economic performance over the past five years. OnFox News Sunday,Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer pointed out the country has added 8 million jobs since the health care law passed in March 2010. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a different take on the state of the labor force onFace the Nation. Why are jobs and economic growth so dismal? he asked. Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. And if President Obama wants to give an honest, candid State of the Union address this week, hell address the fact that his economic policies are not working. It's difficult to say how Obama's policies are causing the economy to stall or succeed, but we can examine Cruz's specific claim about labor force participation. Cruz, whose press office did not respond to our request for comment, is correctly breaking down data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate is another measurement of the health of the labor market. The unemployment rate is the number of people who are not working as a percent of the labor force. There are multiple lenses through which to view jobs data. Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent. We know what youre thinking: Cool numbers, PolitiFact, but what do they mean? Take a look at the trend. The labor force participation rate had been increasing since 1948, the first year the labor force participation rate was calculated. Then, it was 58.6 percent. It peaked in the late 1990s and 2000 to just more than 67 percent, before more recently hitting its lowest point in 36 years. Its fallen 2.9 percentage points since Obamas first month on the job in January 2009. Whats happening is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field. Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story. The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview. Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003. Our ruling Cruz said, Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. Were pretty confident Obama isnt asking Cruz for State of the Union talking points, and hes especially not interested in one that may suggest todays economic policies arent working. Cruz has his statistics right. But well note at least part of the trend has been years in the making and appears strongly tied to the inevitable aging of the baby boomer population. In other words, its not all Obamas fault, and its not going to change the minute he leaves office. We rate Cruzs statement Mostly True. It's a move straight out of the campaign playbook: If your opponent criticizes you for something, accuse him of doing the same thing.That's what Charlie Crist's campaign for U.S. Senate is trying to do to opponent Marco Rubio about supporting the $862 billion economic stimulus package.Rubio has repeatedly criticized Gov. Crist for supporting the plan, which used tax cuts and federal spending to try to jump-start the economy. Rubio has said that Crist breathed air into the sails of the failed Democrat plan, while deflating Republican efforts to rally behind an alternative.To turn the tables, Crist's campaign issued a satirical news release writtenas a speechthat Rubio supposedly would give to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In it, Rubio would acknowledge that he had said in a recent interview that I would have accepted the stimulus money. The news release was satire, but the point was serious -- that Rubio said he would have accepted stimulus money. We were surprised by that because Rubio has been so critical of the stimulus, so we decided to see what he had actually said. The Crist campaign is referring to a Rubio interview by Keith Cate of WFLA-TV in Tampa on Dec. 9, 2009. Asked whether he would not have accepted the stimulus money, Rubio said that ultimately I would have accepted those portions of the money that would not have put Florida in a worse position off in the future than it is right now.That's not exactly a hearty endorsement, but Rubio is definitely saying that he would take at least some of the money.When the statement set off blog frenzy, the Rubio campaign tried to explain. Alex Burgos, Rubio's spokesman, toldPoliticothat Theres a big different (sic) between what Charlie Crist did by accepting the Obama stimulus as the best that Congress could do, actively promoting it, advocating for it among his fellow Republicans ... and what other governors ultimately did  governors like Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbor  by reluctantly accepting federal funds after the fact.Rubio toldNational Journal's  Hotline on Callthat advocating for the stimulus plan and accepting those dollars are not the same. The stimulus was a disaster and I would have fought it in every way possible.As far as we can tell, Rubio has been consistent with his position that there is a distinction between accepting money and actually endorsing the stimulus. Speaking with The Weekly Standard in May 2009, Rubio said that It's one thing to say you'll accept the funds from the federal government ... it's another to actively advocate those policies, which I think are disastrous for America.And indeed, even in the aforementioned interview, when asked whether he would have attended the presidential visit from Barack Obama -- referring to a February 2009 town hall meeting in Fort Myers, which Crist attended -- Rubio said he would have avoided it because that rally was in support of a specific plan.To recap: Crist's campaign claimed that Rubio admitted that he would have accepted the stimulus money. And indeed, in the WFLA interview, Rubio said he would have accepted those portions of the money that would not have put Florida in a worse position off in the future than it is right now.We rate this Mostly True.