Has Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene asserted that California wildfires were triggered by 'Jewish Space Lasers'?
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture."
Claim:  A bill currently before Congress would require that all handgun owners list their guns on federal income tax returns.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may requirefingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, https://www.senate.gov/  You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. Variations:  An August 2009 version of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail combined it with the Blair Holt e-mail that truthfully claims a bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearms licenses. ownership Origins:  The item quoted above about a pending Congressional bill requiring gun owners to list their guns on federal income tax is both outdated and contains a good deal of misinformation. The referenced bill, SB 2099 (the Handgun Safety and Registration Act) is not currently before Congress  it was introduced to the Senate back in February 2000 (not 2009), and it was referred to the Committee on Finance, where it languished without ever coming to a vote.  It also had no provisions for requiring handgun owners to list their guns on federal income tax returns. The issue back in 2000 was Senate Bill 2099, introduced in February of that year by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island.  S. 2099 was titled the "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000" and sought "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes."   Senate Bill 2099 Jack Reed The National Firearms Act of 1934 established (among other things) a tax on both the manufacture and the transfer of firearms, required that each person who transfers a firearm file an application  National Firearms Act (complete with photograph and fingerprints) with the internal revenue authorities, and authorized the creation of "a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States."  However, the definition of "firearm" used by the 1934 act did not include standard rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It applied only to specialized weapons such as short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and other "destructive devices" (e.g., grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, mines). S. 2099 would have expanded the definition of "firearm" to include handguns, thus subjecting them to these requirements as well.  The upshot of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act, if passed, would have been the imposition of a $50 tax on the manufacture of all handguns, a requirement that all gun owners register their handguns within one year of the Act's passage (but not, as claimed, list them on their federal income tax returns), and the provision that registration information be made available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  In practical terms, every handgun owner would have had to obtain a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms registration form and an FBI fingerprint form, then complete and submit both forms (along with a 2x2 of himself and a $5 payment) to the BATF.   That the intent of this bill was to effect nationwide registration of handguns is unmistakable.  As stated in apress release about Senator Reed's bill: press release The bill would require registration of all handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another individual without prior law enforcement approval. Background checks would be performed on all primary and secondary transfers of handguns, including retail sales, gun shows, Internet sales and all private sales. The claim that this bill could have been passed into law without Congress voting upon it was not true: The Handgun Safety and Registration Act, like any other Congressional bill, would have had to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or passed again over his veto) in order to become law. Furthermore, the $50 tax specified in the bill would have applied only to gun manufacturers, not gun owners.   As noted above, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 languished in committee without ever being brought to a vote, and even Senator Reed himself said at the time he submitted the bill that he was not optimistic about its chances of success: I am under no illusion that this legislation will be approved by this Congress or next Congress ... But we must begin the process to create a law that Americans overwhelmingly believe is necessary. Additional information:       Misleading E-mail   (gunregistration.org)  Last updated:  13 August 2009 Rep. Dave Brat says the U.S. economy is stuck in the doldrums. The labor force participation rate - the share of the potential workforce that is actually working or looking for work - currently stands below 63%, the lowest level since the 1970s, Brat, R-7th, said in a May 24 Facebookpost. No doubt, the economy has had a choppy recovery from the Great Recession. But we wondered if its true that the percentage of potential workers who are employed or trying to find a job is at the lowest level in 40 years. Ivan Schwartz, spokesman for Brats re-election campaign, backed his statement by pointing to monthlytalliesby the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show that in April, the latest month for which figures were available when Brat made his comment, 62.8 percent of people who were 16 or older either were employed or actively seeking work. We should start by noting that 62.8 percent was not the lowest proportion of people in the labor force during the past several decades. The bottom came in September 2015, when the rate was 62.4 percent. Youd have to go back to October 1977 to find a time when the rate sank to that level. Still, Brat has a point in that the share of potential workers has been hovering near its lowest point in several decades. From the late 1970s up until the Great Recession, the percentage of people in the labor force for the most part was on the upswing. But in 2007, the year the recession started, the proportion of people in the labor force started to fall from 66.3 percent and continued that decline after the official end of the recession in June 2009. The drop continued until the September 2015 low point. Daniel Culbertson, an economist at the Indeed.com hiring website, told us that the economic downturn and simple demographics are the commonly cited cause of the drop in the percentage of people who are in the labor force. Those that cite a deteriorating economy believe more workers are becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force altogether due to lack of opportunity, low wages, etc., Culbertson wrote in an email. Others opine that the majority of the decline can be explained by aging baby boomers leaving the labor force as they begin to retire en masse. How much of the LFPR (labor force participation rate) decline is attributable to each is a common topic of debate among economists. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, attributes at least half of the drop to baby boomer retirements. That would have happened even if the recession never had occurred and the economy kept growing at the pace it had been in 2007, Burtless told us in an interview. Other factors are at play, Burtless said. Younger people who could enter the workforce are staying in college longer, he said. Some of the dropoff, particularly among potential workers ages 25 to 54 not in the labor force, remains a mystery, Burtless said. As we noted above, theres been a bit of an uptick in the percentage of people who are in the workforce since last September - but not much. It rose from 62.4 percent to 63 percent in March. But then it fell to 62.6 percent in May - a figure that was not available when Brat made his statement. Even so, its still up a bit from the September 2015 low point. A final note, our colleagues at PolitiFact National have examined a similarclaimthat Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas hasmadeover the years that the percentage of people working is at its lowest level since the 1970s, a statement Cruz has made to argue that Obama shares blame for the trend. PolitiFact has rated the statement Mostly True, saying the trend is real, but at least some of the drop is due to demographics beyond the presidents control. Brat, in his post, did not assign political blame for the drop. He predicted, however, that the situation will get worse if people  buy into solutions being offered by Democrats. Our ruling Brat said the labor force participation rate currently stands below 63%, the lowest level since the 1970s. His percentage is right, and the congressman is correct that the rate of potential workers in the labor force has been hovering near a four-decade low since the start of 2014. Our one minor quibble is that the actual low point occurred in September 2015, when the labor participation rate fell to 62.4 percent. Its been slightly higher this year. Still, we rate Brats statement True. On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). Claim:  Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins:   With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who   have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something  right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003  the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years.  Moreover, the  Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups"  though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million  10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income  to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday  'What's wrong with curves?'  stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain.  Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate.  The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman.  The largest of the pledges  $3.75 million over five years  goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said.  The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations.  The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth.  The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization.  In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.  The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes  Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements.  Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes.  Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information:     Curves International web site  Last updated:  19 November 2006    Sources:   Carroll, Jon.  "Jon Carroll."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  20 April 2004  (p. E12).    Chan, Vera H-C.  "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women."   San Jose Mercury News.  16 April 2004.    Kennedy, John W.  "Rolling with the Curves."   Today's Christian.  January 2004  (p. 30).    Lawrence, Elana.  "Curves, Without Frills."   The Washington Post.  27 May 2003  (p. F1).    Reimer, Susan.  "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves."   The Baltimore Sun.  8 February 2004  (p. N1).    Rosen, Ruth.  "What's Wrong With Curves?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  29 April 2004  (p. B9).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   4 May 2004  (p. A2).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   13 May 2004  (p. A2). In his Democratic convention address, former President Bill Clinton took a shot at President Donald Trumps economic record during the coronavirus pandemic, saying the 45th president has botched his handling of the twin health and economic crises. Donald Trump says were leading the world, Clinton said. Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple. Using the most clear-cut multi-nation comparison  comparing January to June 2020  Clinton is right. But its worth noting some differences in how countries address unemployment. We turned to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank whose members are advanced industrialized countries. The group collects economic statistics for all its members, including unemployment rates. We chose 20 countries for which data was available, including most of the countries in western Europe, plus Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. For consistencys sake, we compared January to June because only two of the countries reported data for July. As the following chart shows, the United States was among the few countries to show a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate between January and June. The U.S. is the peach-colored line with the steep climb; you can see each country highlighted if you hover over the list of countries at the bottom. The United States saw its unemployment rate increase from 3.6% to 11.1%. That works out to a little under 3.1 times higher in June than January. No other country saw such a big increase. The only other nation that saw its unemployment rate more than double over that period was Canada, which saw its rate increase 2.2 times. Canada actually had a higher unemployment rate in June than the U.S. did, at 12.3%, but the scale of Canadas increase was more modest than the United States because Canada had a higher rate to start, at 5.5%. Using U.S. data for February instead of January doesnt change the picture much. The U.S. unemployment rate in February was 3.5%, making the increase through June about 3.2 times. There are a couple asterisks to Clintons statement. If you compare January to July, a month for which data isnt available for most of the OECD nations, the increase in the United States was still substantial, but just short of three times higher. The unemployment rate rose from 3.6% in January to 10.2% in July, meaning an increase of 2.8 times. Its also worth noting that the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen for three straight months, amid a zigzagging reopening and a volatile economy. So the unemployment rate is likely to bounce around a bit before it settles down. Finally, the OECD itselfnotessome differences across countries. Some nations have used more aggressive efforts than the United States to subsidize workers to remain on payrolls. And some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not count temporarily laid-off workers as unemployed, while the United States does count such workers as unemployed. Clinton said the United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began. Thats accurate for the broadest comparison  a 20-nation selection of OECD nations between January 2020 and June 2020. The rate in the U.S. was 3.1 times higher in June than in January. Only Canada came close, with the unemployment rate 2.2 times higher over that period. However, extending the U.S. data to July showed that the increase fell slightly below three times, and there are some complications in making cross-country comparisons. We rate the statement Mostly True. UPDATE, Aug. 20:This article has been updated with additional context about the complications of making cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates. The rating remains the same. In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read: read General Electric is being sold to a Chinese company for 5.4 billion dollars. Americans are you concerned yet???     The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China. conspiracy theories Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory. owned calamity colluding In reality, we found no record of any announcement, or reliable news report, of a deal to sell General Electric (GE) to any Chinese company in 2021. Rather, the figure of "5.4 billion dollars" refers to the sale of GE's appliances division to the China-based company Haier. That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016  before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later. announced completed That sequence of events fatally undermines the broader suggestion that Biden's presidency will "open the floodgates" for aggressive Chinese involvement in the American economy, as part of an underlying, sinister relationship between Biden and the Communist Chinese regime.  Furthermore, the Chinese company in question bought one of GE's divisions, not the entire entity  an additional, highly significant inaccuracy in the widely shared meme. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. On 16 March 2017, the web site Newslo published an article positing that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price had said that it would be better for the federal budget if cancer patients died quickly:   "At the risk of sounding insensitive, we've pretty much got two choices here: we either repeal Obamacare, or we take out more loans from countries like China. And nobody wants to be in debt to the Chinese. At the end of the day, it's better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it's a lousy way to live anyway, and I'm sorry to say it out loud, but it's the truth," Price concluded. This quote was not a genuine statement issued by Secretary Price.  It originated with Newslo, a "hybrid" web site that publishes articles containing a mixture of fact and fiction: hybrid JUST ENOUGH NEWS ... Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. The web site's hybrid articles are accompanied by two buttons labeled "show facts" and "hide facts" that allow readers to see which parts of an article are factual and which parts are fictional. In this case, pressing the "show facts" button highlighted the introductory paragraph of the article, indicating that the remainder of the article, the portion containing the fake Price quote, was fictional:   Newslo is a rather prolific purveyor of fake news, having previously penned articles containing fake quotes from Steve Bannon, KellyAnne Conway, and Mike Pence. Steve Bannon KellyAnne Conway Mike Pence Newslo.  "Tom Price: 'Its Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly.'"
  16 March 2017.