Only about 6.8 percent of the (stimulus) money has actually been spent.
One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent  a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True.
Some coal country voters see Hillary Clinton as a threat, someone who would install regulations that would hurt rather than help the struggling coal industry. But Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, told CNNs Anderson Cooper that she thinks it's necessary to move away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy, and she wants to do what she can to help current coal mine workers make that transition. But the market is making this decision, she said May 4. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. So what I'm offering is a $30 billion plan to really revitalize coal country, to provide support for coal miners and their families, and I think that is the least the country owes these brave people. Coal has historically been the countrys primary electricity generator. But several major coal companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy. We decided to dig into the question of how much of that change is due solely to market forces, rather than environmental regulation. We talked to coal industry experts who told us that the primary forces working against coal are market-based, notably the growth of natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper alternative. But now that coal is vulnerable, environmental regulations may seal coals demise. Coal has always been able to absorb new regulations, said Robert Godby, a professor and expert in energy economics at the University of Wyoming. But the impact natural gas has had since the fracking boom has been amazing to watch. He added: This would all still be happening regardless of regulations. Natural gas is eating coals lunch, and the coal companies made a bad bet on Chinese demand. Coalused to generateabout 50 percent of electricity in the United States, but now its down to about 30 percent. Just in the past couple years, natural gas has begun todisplacecoal. (In this Energy Information Administration chart, the grey line represents coal, and the orange line represents natural gas.) A recent boom inhydraulic fracturing(fracking) in the United States has dramatically increased the availability of natural gas. Natural gasprices are low, and it produces abouthalf as much carbon. Consequently, demand for natural gas is going up, and demand for coal is going down, and fast. While natural gas is the main threat, a growing demand and diminishing costs for renewable energy, like wind and solar power, also takes away from coal demand, said West Virginia University law professor Patrick McGinley. He added that on top of all this, its getting harder to produce cheap coal in the Appalachia region because a century of mining has depleted supply, and so the costs of mining new coal are going up. This is all a huge problem for coal, because electricity is about 90 percent of the coal market, said Andy Roberts, research director for global thermal coal markets at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. He said the trend is unlikely to reverse. But it was a big, failed bet on the international coal market that ultimately pushed companies to a point where they couldnt pay off their debts, forcing them to file for bankruptcy reorganization. About five years ago, the big coal companies   Arch, Alpha and Peabody  took out massive loans to invest in metallurgical coal, a type found in the Appalachia region. They thought fast-growing Asian countries, particularly China, would want the coal to facilitate economic development. But Chinas growth slowed, and the demand never materialized. The companies have been unable to pay back their debts on this project, and thats what sent them into bankruptcy, Godby said. Regulations may make electricity companies apprehensive about investing in coal down the line. This is the best way to think about how environmental regulations affect coal: If youre an electricity company considering building a new coal-powered plant or rehabilitating an outdated one, youre already on the fence about whether thats a good investment, because of the threat of natural gas. But then you remember you might have to face strict carbon emission limitations down the line, which convinces you to go with a natural gas plant instead of a coal plant. Take President Barack Obamas Clean Power Plan, a major initiative that would affect coal-powered plants by reducing carbon emissions. It isnt in effect yet, and it faces court hurdles. Even so, the uncertainty of what kinds of carbon limitations coal plants will face, and the possibility that they could be significant, has already reduced coal plant investment, Roberts said. So, investment in coal plants is now basically nil, Roberts said. And when the CPP begins in earnest in 2022, coal demand, already suffering, will more rapidly and inexorably decline. Similarly, the2015 Mercury and Air Toxics Standardsis a federal regulation that has had a significant impact on the coal industry and contributed to coal-powered plant closures. But its impossible to tell how much of the changes in the coal market can be attributed solely to the regulations, rather than the regulations plus the market forces. Multiple experts we asked said that so far, its primarily been the market putting pressure on coal. But looking toward the future, as coal becomes more vulnerable and environmental rules get bigger, regulations may play a larger role. Yes, as Secretary Clinton notes, the market is sorting this out, Roberts said. Competitive natural gas, the market, does indeed have something to do with that. But so do the CPP and federal subsidies for renewable generation. The combination of all these elements has been toxic for coal companies and lethal for those with too much debt. In reality, the market for coal is partially economic but increasingly regulatory. In October,Appalachian Power President Charles Patton saidcoal power wont be able to rebound with or without the Clean Power Plan  the economics just dont make sense. Our ruling Clinton said, The market is making this decision. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. Economic forces on both the national and international markets are the main reason coals prominence in the American energy sector is now vulnerable, forcing coal-burning plant closures and several high-profile bankruptcies. For a long time, coal has been impervious to government regulation. But more recently, regulations  a non-economic force  might be the straw that breaks the camels back, especially going forward now that coal is on shaky ground. Clintons claim is missing this important context, so we rate it Mostly True. Numerous allegations of sexual harassment have been made against former film executive Harvey Weinstein recently, which may be why "satirical" web site Freedom Junkshun was inspired to publish a story on 17 October 2017 that painted documentarian Michael Moore in a similar light. According to the site: Fox News reported Monday: While filming anti-gun movie Bowling for Columbine Sarah Slater, who was 16 at the time and on set as an extra, says Moore walked up to her and made multiple passes. "I rejected him every time but he wouldnt take no for an answer, Slater tells Fox. He had me change into this really short skirt and he would just stare. At the end of the day, I was at a vending machine and felt a hand sliding up my thigh." In reality, Fox News reported no such thing. Freedom Junkshun is a long-standing publisher of false information. The site includes this disclaimer: publisher We believe that there is nothing more precious than the mind of an aging conservative. Here we gather a boatload of bullhonkey, works of pure satirical fiction, to give the fist-shakers of the world a reason to hate. Reality is often in the eye of the beholder. You wont find any of it here. Join the fun in the comments on our Facebook page where you too can watch David Hasselhoff running over someones poodle magically transformed into a crime against humanity by Barack Obama or yet another murder the Clintons got away with. However, that did not stop conservative social media users from trying to pass the story off as legitimate:     As is commonplace, other websitesConservative Columns, The Star Chronicle, USA First Information, and Defense Patriotregurgitated the fake story without including a "satirical" disclaimer of their own. In reality, Moore criticized Weinstein in a Facebook post on 13 October 2017, saying: saying: I have intervened on more than one occasion and I have fired men who sexually harass women. Harvey Weinstein knew better than to behave inappropriately toward women in my presence. I'm guessing successful sociopaths like him who get away with it for years are very, very careful not to let the kind of men who would stop them dead cold ever get a glimpse of who they really are. I don't live in Weinstein's Hollywood world and I make documentaries, so I can't speak to the culture he created and seemed to thrive in. I AM the only director that I know of who's actually taken Weinstein to court (for being a thief, which requires a different set of sociopathic skills, but, like sexual harassment, you can probably find them at a few Hollywood studios). All of us (men) must share the responsibility for allowing a society to exist where women do not feel safe. A society where, when they are abused, they are not able to tell their stories without fear of retribution and shame. A society that badgers, blames or scoffs at women when they tell their stories. Or how they tell their stories. Or "how long" it took them. They carry a burden that most of us (men) never have to experience. If you can't empathize with that or understand what they are dealing with, then maybe you're part of the problem. We contacted Moore seeking comment on Freedom Junkshun's "story." Weinstein, the former co-founder of Miramax and the Weinstein Company, has been accused by more than 60 women of sexually harassment or assault in the wake of reports by both the New York Times and the New Yorker this month, detailing a pattern of alleged abuse. both and He was subsequently fired from the Weinstein Company as well as expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Police in London and Los Angeles have opened investigations regarding Weinstein, while New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is reviewing whether Weinstein committed civil rights violations. London Angeles reviewing Kantor, Jodi and Megan Twohey.  "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades."
  The New York Times.  5 October 2017. Farrow, Ronan.  "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers Tell Their Stories."
  The New Yorker.  10 October 2017. Lartey, Jamiles and Kevin Rawlinson.  "Harvey Weinstein: Police in New York and London Investigating Allegations."
  The Guardian.  12 October 2017. Winton, Richard and Victoria Kim.  "Investigation Launched After Actress Tells LAPD She Was Raped by Harvey Weinstein."
  Los Angeles Times.  19 October 2017. Twohey, Megan.  "Weinstein Company Faces Civil Rights Inquiry by New York Attorney General."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2017. FACT CHECK: Did Kentucky hire an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs?      Claim:  Kentucky hired an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs.    Example:   [Collected via Twitter and Facebook, August 2015] Why can't an Amish worker at a DMV refuse to give out driver's licenses? pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB  Hamybear (@hamybear) August 16, 2015 August 16, 2015    Origins: On 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court's decision in the case Obergefell vs. Hodges [PDF] held that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Almost immediately, that decision led to a number of rumors and viral claims; that pedophiles would soon be granted similar rights, that Joe Biden had gone on a victory spree, and that Facebook had begun tracking the political beliefs of users via a celebratory rainbow filter for profile pictures.) PDF pedophiles Joe Biden rainbow filter Tangential rumors circulated pertaining to individuals and businesses who subsequently (or previously) went out on a limb for their religious opposition to marriage equality, which included a false claim involving a pastor purportedly  jailed for refusing to marry a gay couple and the true case of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay damages stemming from a pre-decision refusal to serve a same-sex couple. The meme displayed above was inspired by Kentucky court clerk named Kim Davis, who unwittingly starred in a viral video during which she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling. jailed bakery Kim Davis On 12 August 2015, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Davis [PDF] to begin issuing licenses as requested. Bunning wrote in his ruling that by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others," Davis had violated the law, adding: ordered PDF Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The humorous image above was clearly created to poke fun at Davis over the legal dispute (and the general issue of allowing personal religious beliefs to trump the requirements of employment and public service), a subtlety lost on many social media users who hadn't heard of the marriage license controversy in Kentucky and consequently didn't get the joke. The jape partially relies outsider assumptions about Amish  culture, one of which is the notion that Amish people are prohibited from driving due to their religion. That's not precisely accurate, as use of a horse-and-buggy over cars is primarily a cultural choice and not part of a specific anti-automobile religious edict applied to everyone: Amish anti-automobile Although the Amish are allowed to use automobiles for social and business functions, the church rules prohibit members from owning as well as driving a car. Amish businessmen are also not allowed to provide loans to non-Amish employees for the purpose of buying a vehicle. Ownership of an automobile is considered a taboo. It is important to the community to maintain the horse and buggy as a symbol of Amish identity. The joke also leans on a (fallacious) assumption that Amish citizens neither seek nor require state driver's licenses, part of a broad, inaccurate perception of the community as frightened of the outside world. The Amish often need state-issued ID for a variety of day-to-day purposes, including the operation of lucrative businesses (contrary to the belief Amish people reject wealth and/or financial success entirely or that they lack awareness of modern conventions). Photographic requirements have presented problems for Amish people seeking licenses, however, as their traditions generally favor the avoidance of photography. (Yet another misconception asserts the practice is due to a primitive, uneducated fear that the camera might "steal" a person's soul; in actuality, it's more due to intentional humility and not a fear of technology.) state-issued ID variety operation photography fear steal soul While the meme seen here satirizes the imposition of religious belief on outsiders by a presumably stricter sect, it should be noted that Amish communities are known for a marked disinclination to interact with the "English" world save for necessary circumstances. Although their religious beliefs are notoriously stringent, Amish folks are far likelier to be encroached upon by a conflict of law and faith than the other way around. disinclination Last updated:  17August 2015 Originally published: 17August 2015 On 10 August 2009, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer published an op-ed piece in USA Today under the title "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate," in which they criticized those who had been engaging in efforts to disrupt debate over health insurance reform legislation (which later became widely known as "Obamacare"). op-ed Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer wrote (in part): [I]t is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views  but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades. That op-ed prompted Dennis L. Guthrie, an attorney with the Charlotte, North Carolina, law firm of Guthrie, Davis, Henderson & Staton, to pen a (primarily ad hominem) critical letter to Rep. Pelosi the following day, images of which soon began circulating online.  Dear Ms. Pelosi: I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda. I am a soon to be 65 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam, as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you. You obviously haven't read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough's book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution. I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your public service. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband's investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payers expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States; you only subtract therefrom. I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband's canned tuna and pineapple - produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have. I await your defeat in the next election with glee. Dont ever use the term un-American again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60s and 70s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress. I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many.   We contacted Mr. Guthrie at the address included in the letterhead on which the letter was printed, and he confirmed that he did indeed write and send such a letter to Rep. Pelosi. The letter circulated again in 2019 via social media, with one minor revision: The line "I am a soon to be 65 year-old" was changed to "I am a soon to be a [sic] 75 year-old." Pelosi, Nancy and Steny Hoyer.  "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate."
  USA Today.  10 August 2009. In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth   the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. For years, retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares. posts    Questions surrounding the policy have made social media rounds since at least 2018, and appeared in coverage by publications like The List and was posted to Reddit in 2019: The List posted 2019 "Is it true that you can return used candles and swap them out for new ones? Ir is it a YMMV [your mileage may vary] situation" Most of the reports claimed that if a customer keeps the receipt, they can return anything for any reason. And even without the receipt, customers could expect to receive store credit at the very least. At Bath & Body Works, you can return anything you buy, at anytime, for any reason. If you have your receipt, you may get a refund. If you don't, you'll likely get store credit, wrote Good Housekeeping in 2018. But does that apply to used items? Likely not. A look at the Bath & Body Works return policy showed that an empty product cannot be return solely on the grounds that it has been used. We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed, wrote the company. If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy. wrote In a subsequent post, Peden corrected the post to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE. PERFUMES SOAPS LOTION CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items. subsequent post  In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be Pedens receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. photo receipt  Screengrab/Facebook  Facebook Snopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used, but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly. noted Our return policy is intended to help customers who have issues that are related to poor product performance or unsatisfactory customer experience and is not intended to be taken advantage of when a product performs as expected. If a product has been fully used, it would seem that it has met its performance expectations, read the policy. While it is true that Peden returned three items to a Bath & Body Works location in Tennessee in exchange for three items of equal value, we were unable to confirm whether that one candle exchanged was actually completely used. Snopes followed up with the company to further confirm the condition of the exchanged items but until we hear back, we have rated this claim Unproven. As a comedian who claims he sees the faults in both major U.S. political parties, Jimmy Dore said this to fans amid clashes between Portland, Oregon, protesters and federal agents operating under a plan by U.S. President Donald Trump in July 2020: the country's top Democrats are misleading you. Jimmy Dore In a video posted on July 22, 2020, Dore claimed U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were quick to use Twitter to push back against what started as a Trump-led initiative to deploy federal militarized officers in cities where people were protesting for the removal of racist monuments and against police brutality following George Floyd's in-custody death in May 2020. video initiative federal militarized officers George Floyd's Meanwhile, Dore claimed the same Democrats were working on legislation that would fund the exact law-enforcement effort to which they were outwardly opposed  the Trump-sponsored plan that resulted in chaotic street clashes between the officers and Americans who said they were rightfully exercising their First Amendment rights, and raised questions over the constitutional authority of federal law enforcement agencies.   Referring to groups of armed federal officers who wore camouflage body armor and were patrolling downtown Portland at the time of this analysis, Dore said: camouflage body armor You know whos not even trying to stop them? Nancy Pelosi. You know whos actually empowering that very thing to happen? You know whos giving Trump the soldiers, the goons, and the money to send those people in there without stopping them? ... Nancy Pelosi is giving Trumps Homeland Security, who those goons are, all the money they want with no strings attached. She could say, 'Well fund you, but inside this funding bill you cannot send federal troops into local municipalities, unless youre invited.' Shes not doing that  the Democrats arent doing that. ... There's Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful people in government, not doing anything but pretending to be outraged. The claim at its core was multifaceted: that Pelosi made clear in public statements that she opposed the Trump administration's use of federal agents in American cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Portland in the aftermath of Floyd's death, and that she was concurrently working on a policy proposal that would cover the cost of similar militarized efforts in the future. Floyd Below examines the truth of those assertions based on federal legislative records; Pelosi's office did not respond to Snopes' request for comment on the accusations. In an email to Snopes, a representative for Dore said he wanted to expose his viewers to the idea that House Democrats were "refusing to use their majority status to counter Trump," and that he based his argument on an article by a former speech writer for 2020 presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders named David Sirota. That report alleged: article Indeed, at times it almost seems as if Democrats are engaging in deliberate performance art to try to dare us to care about this bait and switch  as if they really cannot believe we are all this ignorant or asleep to not even notice the swindle. First, let's provide some context. Trump signed an executive order on June 26, 2020, giving several federal agencies the authority to join the Federal Protective Service  which is a section of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that aims to protect government properties  on patrols during demonstrations. executive order Federal Protective Service Homeland Security   Neither that order, nor other federal records, said how many agents would be participating in the effort, or what department they worked for. However, DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Kenneth Cuccinelli told reporters tactical units from the DHS' Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) were part of the president's directive. Other reports said officers from a group known as BORTAC  the CBP equivalent of a SWAT team that normally investigates drug-smuggling crimes  was also deployed. told reporters reports That said, the DHS was among the leading agencies in the federal government's response to the protests, making an investigation into that department's funding proposals the most appropriate avenue to determine the legitimacy of the claim. We reached out to DHS, asking for its response to critics like Dore who believed the DHS should not receive federal funding until it removes its officers from protest sites, but did not hear back as of this writing. David Lapan, a former spokesman for the DHS and Department of Defense, however, said in a blog post: said The creation of DHS [in 2002] was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. ... While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portlands protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place. Next, we'll address the first part of the claim: that Pelosi decried the Trump-led operation, which devolved into federal officers using tear gas and firing less-than-lethal rounds into crowds of people almost nightly in Portland, and an incident in which a federal officer threw an impact munition at a 26-year-old man, fracturing his skull and sending him to the hospital. (That incident was also captured on video.)  video. While individual offices of several Democratic leaders made public statements about the federal use of force against citizens, we are only focusing on comments specifically by Pelosi, since she is the only member of Congress with the legal authority to decide on what legislation the House votes on, and because she was the main target of Dore's video. Upon our analysis of Pelosi's press announcements, media appearances, and social media posts since Trump made the directive, a series of tweets from her official account on July 17, 2020, appeared to be the first record of the House Speaker's dissent from the presidential administration's plan. series of tweets   The following day, her office sponsored a news release that said the House was committed to "moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power" by Trump, without providing specifics, and referred to reports of federal agents in Portland using unmarked vehicles to "kidnap" protesters. (See our investigation into the truth of that claim here). news release here Then, five days later, Pelosi endorsed another statement alleging that the "anonymous federal law enforcement agents" were silencing "peaceful protesters with violence," and made the following comment at a news conference:  statement news conference The use of storm troopers under the guise of law and order is a tactic that is not appropriate to our country in any way.  To recap, it was truthful to say that Pelosi criticized how federal agents responded to American protests in summer 2020, and that at least some of those officers represented DHS. Now, we'll examine the more complicated aspect of the claim: that Pelosi was working under the public's radar to prepare legislation that would set aside taxpayer dollars to pay to deploy federal law enforcement officers in U.S. cities in line with Trump's June order. To explore that question, we analyzed the agendas of House committees in July 2020 and looked for proposals that would apply to DHS considering its role in the protests. We learned the House Committee on Appropriations  to which Pelosi does not belong  released a more than $50 billion proposal on July 6, 2020, that explained how the committee would like to fund the department in 2021. The annual DHS budget bill was framed by the House committee as a compromise with Trump's wishes for all offices within the department, which included aggressive funding to continue building a concrete-steel wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. During our read of the draft legislation, we considered the various arms of federal government to which the DHS oversees, in addition to those that had provided law enforcement at protests, such as: does not belong released Trump's wishes aggressive funding building a concrete-steel wall such as Among numerous provisions, the proposal would set aside roughly $14.6 billion for the CBP to hire new officers, among other border-security efforts, and about $7.4 billion for ICE. In total, it would set aside $50.72 billion in discretionary funding  including roughly the same amount as the country's 2020 budget for non-military units  while boosting funding for defense operations by roughly $250 million, disaster relief by $5.1 billion, and military operations overseas by $215 million. country's 2020 budget However, nowhere in the roughly 85-page piece of legislation did the committee request federal dollars in 2021 to cover the cost of sending federal agents to U.S. cities to mitigate damage to federal properties during protests. roughly 85-page piece of legislation On July 15, 2020, the House committee  which is comprised of 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans  amended the legislation so ICE would be unable to use 2021 funding for a public education program, among other changes that essentially added stipulations for how and under what circumstances DHS could use portions of the money. But no amendment pertained to the use of militarized tactics during protests in American cities. July 15, 2020 public education program In other words  yes, like Dore somewhat alleges  House Democrats could in theory include language in the proposal that would only allow the DHS to receive certain funding if it agreed not to participate in the controversial law-enforcement effort.   The committee approved the budget bill, and it was introduced to the House on July 20, 2020. But as of this writing, it was unclear when or if Pelosi would preside over a hearing in which the full House would consider the proposal, titled H.R. 7669. Also undetermined was if or to what extent representatives would lump the DHS spending plan into a wide-sweeping policy package governing other aspects of federal government  such as its response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  which is typically the process for such budget-making. committee approved titled H.R. 7669. wide-sweeping policy package coronavirus The House clerk's online calendar for the week of July 27, 2020, listed the legislation as an item "that may be considered" on the House floor in the coming days, without any more scheduling details. July 27, 2020 At least two Democratic representatives, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, asked Pelosi not to schedule the bill for a floor hearing in light of the 2020 protests. They wrote in a statement: Rep. Pramila Jayapal Mark Pocan of Wisconsin wrote The Progressive Caucus has long-standing objections to the DHS Appropriations bill, which would fund [Trump-sponsored] programs and thereby sanction the horrific violations of human rights and due process by ICE, CBP and other agencies. Without the inclusion of additional necessary reforms, we believe that the Democratic Leadership should not attempt to pass Homeland Security funding by tying it to essential coronavirus research, education, and housing funding. Now, back to the claim in question. Yes, it was accurate to say members of the House were working on a DHS budget plan in July 2020  when Pelosi and other leading Democrats were issuing public statements against the very actions of federal officers who belonged to the department. However, Pelosi had not voted on or publicly discussed the budget bill as of this report, and given the fact that she did not respond to Snopes' request for interview, there was no available evidence to prove that she agreed  or disagreed  with the proposal. Put another way: It would be false to assert that Pelosi supported the funding proposal, as the claim stated, since it was so far only approved by the House Committee on Appropriations and awaiting a House vote. Additionally, while H.R. 7669, as written, would not explicitly prohibit the use of DHS officers to protect federal properties during demonstrations, it would be misleading to claim the legislation would pump federal dollars toward such law-enforcement efforts directly. The bill, instead, would authorize the DHS to decide how to divvy up some parts of its budget  which could include funding DHS agencies that were involved in the 2020 protests  but we have no proof to affirmatively state that the proposal would pay for the controversial policing tactics in the future. In sum, while it was unequivocally true to say Pelosi criticized the actions of federal agents in U.S. cities during protests in 2020, it was false to claim she simultaneously supported a budget bill that contradicted her public stance, and that that legislation would most definitely pay for militarized policing during demonstrations in U.S. cities  with the caveat that House leaders, including Pelosi, always maintained the authority to determine how and under what circumstances DHS could use federal dollars in the future. Lapan, David. "Former DHS And Defense Dept. Spokesperson: Trump's Response To Civil Unrest In Portland Is Damaging To Our Government And Our Democracy".
 Just Security. 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "DHS Budget".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Appropriations Committee. "FY21 Homeland Security & Financial Services Appropriations Bills".
 15 July 2020. Soskin, Ben. "Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, DHS Appropriations Subcommittee Approve FY 2021 DHS Funding Bill".
 Press Releases. 7 July 2020. Spaulding, Suzanne. "Senior Adviser, Homeland Security, International Security Program".
 Center For Strategic And International Studies. Accessed 27 July 2020. Lapan, David. "Vice President of Communications".
 Bipartisan Policy Center. Accessed 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "Congressional Budget Justification FY 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Report Of The Committee On Appropriations".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Full Committee Print".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding Bill".
 6 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding bill". 15 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "House To Consider Seven-Bill Appropriations Minibus Next Week".
 20 July 2020. House Appropriations. "Division-By-Division Summary".
 Accessed 27 July 2020.  EveryCRSReport.com. "DHS Budget Request Analysis: FY2021".
 1 April 2020. Homeland Security. "FY 2021 Budget In Brief".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. National Immigration Forum. "The President's Budget Request For The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS): Fiscal Year (FY) 2021".
 27 February 2020. Altman, Heidi. "Principles For Negotiating a DHS Budget".
 National Immigrant Justice Center. 27 January 2019. Grim, Ryan. "As Trump Threatens Secret Police Deployment Nationwide, Democrats Debate Expanding Surveillance Powers And New Money For DHS".
 The Intercept. 21 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Homeland Subcommittee Approves FY21 DHS Budget Bill".
 MeriTalk. 7 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Approps Proposes FY2021 Funding Bumps For DHS, CISA".
 MeriTalk. 6 July 2020. House Committee On Appropriations. "FY 2021 Homeland Security Subcommittee Markup".
 7 July 2020. Blitzer, Jonathan. "Is It Time To Defund The Department Of Homeland Security?"
 The New Yorker. 24 July 2020. Graff, Garrett. "The Federal Crackdown In Portland Is 'Legal.' That's The Problem With It".
 The Washington Post. 22 July 2020. Wolf, Chad. "Homeland Security Chief: To Attack Our Monuments Is To Attack America".
 The Federalist. 3 July 2020. Kanno-Youngs, Zolan. "Homeland Security Turns To Defunding Statues Amid Questions Over Priorities".
 New York Times. 10 July 2020. Baker, et. al. "Cities In Bind As Turmoil Spreads Far Beyond Portland".
 New York Times. 26 July 2020. Klippenstein, Ken. "The Border Patrol Was Responsible For An Arrest In Portland".
 The Nation. 17 July 2020. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Congressional Progressive Caucus Asks Leadership Not To Bring DHS Funding Bill To The Floor".
 22 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H.R. 7617 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H. Rept. 116-453 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Bills To Be Considered On The House Floor. "Text Of Bills For The Week of Jul. 27, 2020".
 24 July 2020. McQuade, Barbara. "Why Trump's Military Tactics In Portland Will Likely Backfire".
 New York Intelligencer. 18 July 2020. Sirota, David. "Dems' Sternly Worded Letter Won't Stop Fascism".
 Too Much Information. 20 July 2020. Barrett, Devlin and Miroff, Nick. "Trump Administration Sending More Federal Agents To Reinforce Portland Courthouse".
 Washington Post. 27 July 2020. Claim:  The U.S. has been producing the "Amero" coins, money to be used by an economic union of the USA, Canada, and Mexico.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2007] "THE AMERO" IS REAL;I HAVE ONE TO PROVE IT!UNITED STATES, CANADA AND MEXICO TO BE MERGED INTO SINGLE NEW ENTITYNAMED NORTH AMERICAN UNION!By: Hal Turner Three weeks ago, I published a brief snippet on the front page of my web site reporting the governments of the US Canada and Mexico are conspiring in secret to merge the three nations into a new entity called the North American Union. There has been much talk of this on various internet blogs for over a year. Most of those blogs have been smeared as "conspiracy theorists" and have been largely ignored by the main stream. What prompted my interest in the issue was money: I was sent professional images of actual AMERO coins by someone in the US Treasury! The person included a note saying they like my radio show and are frightened by what's been going on in secret within our government. This Treasury Department person was outraged that our country was beginning to coin money as part of a merger that would do away with our country, via a merger the American public knew nothing about! (Rest of article here). here Origins:  To make sense of this wild tale about "Amero" coins being secretly minted by the U.S. government for use by an economic union of the USA, Canada, and Mexico, we will first delve into what the Euro is and why some folks are far from enamored of it. Bear with us while we take that short side   trip. (Or, if you must, skip the next three paragraphs to transition directly to the U.S. portion of the story.) The Euro is the official currency of the European Union, a supranational union comprising 27 member states, and is the sole currency for more than 317 million people. (Not every EU member country has chosen to adopt the Euro; some continue to use their traditional currencies.)  The move to a single currency in Europe comes with both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it does away with the cost of exchanging money, thereby leaving more cash in the pockets of both individual consumers and businesses. It also puts an end to the trouble of having to change one's currency into that of the country being traveled to or traded with, then having to change it back again afterwards  one simply uses the same wad of bills. And it ends fluctuations in the value of one country's money in relation to that of another: when only one currency is used, a cross-border deal struck for a specified amount of cash does not suddenly go up or down in price as the financial markets move, thereby ruining one party to the deal while dropping a windfall into the undeserving lap of the other. On the downside, one central currency means one central bank, which means one central monetary policy. That means individual countries which have subscribed to such a plan cannot combat their individual homelands' economic problems by adjusting their countries' money supplies, either to stimulate growth in moribund national economies or to put the brakes on those that appear to be racing out of control  those countries must instead abide by what the group is doing, even when it runs counter to their individual best interests. That covers what's going on in Europe, and why some love the Euro while others view it as a dangerous idea set loose upon an unsuspecting public. At various times it has been suggested that North America should follow a like route by adopting an omnibus currency similar to the Euro, one that would serve as the common money for the USA, Canada, and Mexico. While that notion does have a few proponents, it is a long way from being taken seriously, let alone being regarded as a good idea.  Which brings us to the question of the "Amero," the name bestowed upon the hypothetical currency such a union would use as its common specie. In 1999, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver published The Case for the Amero, a study that advanced the idea that the  The Case for the Amero three North American countries would be better served by their having a common currency. And there the matter rests, or at least it did before Designs Computed thought to add to its catalogue of commemorative coins, medals, and tokens a suite of Ameros, a series of collectible coins struck from its concept of what coinage for such a currency might look like. Designs Computed is very clear on its web site that its Ameros are in fact "private-issue fantasy pattern coins [that] will be struck as an annual series," and indeed is already offering some of them for sale. Neither the U.S. Mint nor the U.S. Treasury had a hand in creating these "Ameros."  These coins are merely collectibles offered to the buying public by a private company in the business of manufacturing such curiosities. Designs Computed Ameros sale On 31 August 2007, radio host Hal Turner used images of the Amero tokens offered by Designs Computed as the basis for propagating a patently false tale about his having been given a "real" Amero coin on the sly by an anonymous Treasury agent, and that the existence of said coin was "proof" that the USA, Canada, and Mexico were "to be merged into a single new entity" known as the North American Union. Hal Turner tale After we (and others) debunked Turner's fictional, outrage-provoking conspiracy theory by pointing out the true origin of the Amero tokens, he began claiming that the Designs Computed site had been hastily erected on the Internet as part of "a full blown effort to discredit my story and the images as fake."  That was not the case: Daniel Carr, the entrepreneur behind Designs Computed, has been displaying the coins he has designed on his web site since at least 2000 and has been offering some of them for sale since at least  2005. While his "Amero" entry dates only to 2007, the coins depicted thereon fit seamlessly into his catalogue of similar offerings, including his "parody State Quarters."  parody (Do have a look at some of his "parody State Quarters," particularly Maine's and Colorado's, which especially tickled our fancy.) Maine Colorado Barbara "maine event" Mikkelson Last updated:  5 December 2008    Ramsey, Bruce.  "Bet Your Bottom Amero That U.S. Sovereignty Is Safe."   The Seattle Times.  22 August 2007.    Smith, Michael A.  "Amero-ca the Oh, So Dubious."   The [Galveston County] Daily News.  18 May 2008.    Canada NewsWire.  "Canada Would Benefit from a Common North American Currency."   5 October 1999. On 15 January 2018, DailyWire.com, the right-wing web site headed by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, posted an article falsely reporting that "Mohammed" was the most popular name given to baby boys born in the Netherlands in 2017: article The mainstream media in the Netherlands reported last week that "Noah" was the most popular baby name for boys in the small European nation. "Noah and Emma were the most popular children's names in the past year," reported Nos.nl. "This is evident from the annual list of names of the Social Insurance Bank, which pays out the child benefit. Boys were named Noah 635 times, while 755 girls went through life as Emma since last year." The year before, "Daan" and "Anna" were the most popular names, the site said. But a journalist at Powned.tv did a little research on the report and found something completely different. Checking for "Mohammed"  and all its alternative spellings  the writer found that 636 babies had been given that name last year. PowNed.tv, the web site DailyWire.com aggregated their story from, is a Dutch blog owned by GeenStijl, a right-leaning site that boasts about being "needlessly offensive." Both GeenStijl and PowNed.tv have been criticized for posting anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content. criticized Baby names in the Netherlands are recorded by the Social Insurance Bank (SVB) for social service purposes, and each year SVB releases a list of the most popular names and ranks them. (For example, Noah and Emma were the most popular boys' and girls' names in 2017, while Daan and Anna were the most popular in 2016.) PowNed arrived at their conclusion that Mohammed was the most popular boys' name for 2017 by tallying all of that name's variations and then weighing that total against the number of newborns who were named Noah in 2017, a methodology that's flawed, for obvious reasons. SVB ranks names by specific spellings, so if the variant spellings of any one name are tallied together, that approach changes the ranking order. Thus, "Mohammad" may be a less popular name on its own than "Morris" or "Moos," but when all the different spellings of "Mohammed" are considered together, that name is more popular than either: ranks  It's true that if multiple variant spellings of the name "Mohammed" are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names "Lucas" and "Daniel," it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy's name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of "Lucas," while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name "Daniel" in 2017. The topic of migration in Europe has attracted the attention of nationalists and white supremacists, particularly since 2015, when the number of people seeking refuge from places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria spiked. European countries have been the targets of false stories claiming that migrants are creating rape capitals and "no-go zones." attention spiked rape capitals no-go zones DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified. For example, in the days after a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, the site helped spread a false rumor that "leftists" were digging up Confederate graves. In March of that year, the site spread a false claim that Democratic lawmakers refused to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow. In May 2017, the site falsely reported that Harvard University was holding segregated commencement ceremonies.  DailyWire.com spread false claim segregated The site was embroiled in another racial controversy after posting a video disparaging Native Americans in October 2017. After removing the video, Shapiro responded by apologizing but called the video 'satire.' controversy DutchNews.nl.  "Noah and Emma Top the List of Most Popular Dutch Baby Names."
  12 January 2018. Al Jazeera.  "Rise of the Right: 'Anarchist' Media in the Netherlands."
  27 November 2016. GeenStijl.nl.  "LOL. Real Donald Trump Retweet Dumpertvideo."
  29 November 2017. O'Donnell, Katie.  "Anti-Immigrant Forces Gain Ground in Europe."
  Politico.  22 October 2017. Hinshaw, Drew.  "Polish Nationalist Youth March Draws Thousands in Capital."
  The Wall Street Journal.  11 November 2017.