Bills Passed by Paul Ryan
Claim:  Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Is it true or false that Paul Ryan managed to get only 2 bills passed during his 13 years in the House of Representatives? If true, what were they? Rumor is one of them was to name a post office after himself.  In his 13 years in Congress, Paul Ryan got only two bills passed. One was to change the name of the post office in his home town. Origins:  In August 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped as his vice presidential running mate Congressman Paul Ryan, who has represented Wisconsin's 1st district in Congress since 1999. That selection focused attention on the legislative record of Ryan, including the number of bills he sponsored that had been passed into law. According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative  THOMAS information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment.  (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.)  During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills. name arrows In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them  roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term  are eventually passed into law.   introduced Last updated:  16 August 2012
On 24 May 2016, a Facebook user published the above-reproduced image of a partially blinded beagle, along with the claim that it represented the harmful effects of cosmetics testing on animals: published claim When cosmetics companies like L'Oreal want to test their products, they often use beagles. They take the potentially toxic ingredients in their products and stick them in the puppy's eye in large doses to test how much of a product is needed to cause harm. When they finish, they remove the Beagle's eye and start again on the other eye. When the beagle runs out of eyes, they kill him. This is why we never support animal testing companies. The photograph caused alarm and concern among animal lovers worried about whether the beagle's injuries were truly inflicted by L'Oreal (or any other cosmetics brand). A reverse image search revealed that the photograph had appeared years earlier on Portuguese-language web sites, with many English-language sites later using the same image to blame Mary Kay, Avon, or Procter & Gamble for the beagle's injuries: earlier blame    This doleful image was earlier published on a Brazilian web site, where it was identified as having been taken in the city of So Roque in relation to a controversy involving animal testing at the Instituto Royal laboratory, and it was also posted to Instagram in connection with rumors linked to that laboratory and location: published Instagram  An article published in the Brazilian version of the Epoch Times reported that the lab in question had been closed after protests by animal rights supporters and stated that the institute tested "cosmetics and cleaning products" of unspecified origin: article The Royal Institute announced it is ending the activities of the laboratory in So Roque, in the state of So Paulo. The decision comes after the release of 178 beagle dogs, used in laboratory tests for cosmetics and cleaning products, by protesters. The case was widely reported and generated discussions on ethics related to the use of animals in testing. The institute has been investigated by prosecutors since 2012 for their mistreatment of animals.  A 2013 news article also reported on the beagle controversy but made no specific mention of cosmetics testing at the lab in question: article A group of animal rights activists have been camped in front of the Royal Institute in So Roque (SP) since they stormed the headquarters of the laboratory, which conducts research for the pharmaceutical and veterinary industries, among others. The protesters, including members of the Black Bloc SP, accused the company of the ill-treatment of beagle dogs used in research. Protests against the Royal Institute began just last year. Activists claim that the company practices irregularities and criminal acts against animals ... The Royal Institute defends their research on their web site and says they respect all national and international standards in dealing with dogs in the laboratory. The company is an Oscip (Civil Society Organization of Public Interest) and receives public money thanks to the support of funding agencies for scientific research. Animal advocates say the company does not have licenses and permits for the activities it performs. Contemporaneous articles mentioned "cosmetic and pharmaceutical testing," and a blog post claimed the contraceptive Norplant was among the products tested on the since-liberated beagles. Scientists who worked for the lab lamented the loss of a decade of research in the clashes with animal rights activists: articles pharmaceutical research For the scientific director of the Royal Institute, Joo Antnio Pegas Henry, the damage is incalculable. John Anthony said that the biggest problem was not the liberation of animals, but rather the destruction of the building, material, and especially of their research. "[The activists] destroyed the laboratory, including computers holding research data. We can fix the material damage, but the damage to science is incalculable. There was material that was in its final stages after a ten-year study. Everything was lost," says John Anthony. According to the coordinator of the National Council of Animal Experimentation Control (Concea), Marcelo Marcos Morales, the institute in So Roque is the most important laboratory of the country in relation to such experimentation. While the precise origin of the beagle photograph purportedly linked to L'Oreal research is unknown, the image was originally circulated as one linked to a 2012 controversy involving the since-closed Instituto Royal of So Roque. Testing carried out at the lab while it was operational was not restricted to cosmetics, and most reports named pharmaceutical and household products as the primary substances researched at the Institute. The photograph has long since been repurposed to claim a number of popular cosmetics brands such as MAC, Avon, Mary Kay, and Head & Shoulders were responsible for the beagle's injuries. On L'Oreal's web site, the brand discloses their policy on animal testing, a position a representative for L'Oreal reiterated to us on 27 May 2016: discloses LOral no longer tests on animals any of its products or any of its ingredients, anywhere in the world. Nor does LOral delegate this task to others. The rare exception allowed is if regulatory authorities demand it for safety or regulatory purposes. This image was not the first spurious animal testing rumor attached L'Oreal on social media. Previously, a photograph of a sick rabbit unrelated to animal testing was circulated alongside claims that the animal was also a victim of cruel experiments carried out by L'Oreal. L'Oreal  Lungarzo, Carlos Alberto.  "O Que  O Instituto Royal?"
  RevistaForum.  31 October 2013. Menezes, Bruno.  "Instituto Royal Fecha Laboratrio Em So Roque."
 The Epoch Times.  7 November 2013. Globo.  "Aps Denncia De Maus-Tratos, Grupo Invade Laboratrio E leva Ces Beagle."
  18 October 2013. Globo.  "Alm De 178 Beagles, Sete Coelhos Tambm Foram Levados de Empresa."
  18 October 2013. Globo.  "Invaso Ao Prdio Do Instituto Royal Em So Roque Completa Um Ano."
  18 October 2014. Veja.  "Laboratrio No Interior De So Paulo  Invadido Por Ativistas."
  18 October 2013. A genuine Michael Kors handbag for $7.95? Good luck with that. In early July 2023, we looked for the hidden catch behind a new scam that was originating in TikTok ads. The ads claimed that luxury design company Michael Kors was giving away handbags for a small fee of $7.95. All that users would supposedly need to do to receive one of the handbags was answer three or four questions in a short survey. However, this was not a giveaway that Michael Kors was managing, nor was it a legitimate promotion in any way, shape, or form. The TikTok ads misleadingly claimed, "Michael Kors sends out handbags. Answer 4 questions and get a handbag."  Users who clicked on the ads were led to a page on 20mccsd.tech, a website that showedregistration information for a domain registrar in Russia. This may have been the country from which the scam was originating. showed The 20mccsd.tech website was designed to fool users into believing they were on the official website for Nordstrom, nordstrom.com. The scammers also made sure that anyone trying to visit the website with a copied link and not through a TikTok ad would see a strange facade that cloaked the fake Nordstrom website, as seen below:  As for users who did click on the ads, they saw the Nordstrom logo and the following text: "Congratulations! You have been selected to participate in the Nordstrom campaign. You could win a Michael Kors handbag!"  After answering three questions, users were redirected to exclusiveluckyshop.com. This website then claimed users would be eligible to enter into a supposed giveaway for a Michael Kors Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag. This product normally retails for $298, according to Michael Kors' official website. website The scam had changed from promising handbags for $7.95 in the TikTok ads to instead saying that users would be paying the small fee simply to enter to win in a suspicious giveaway.  At the very bottom of exclusiveluckyshop.com, in a small font size, we found the terms and conditions. The terms included the catch behind the entire scam: Any users who paid the fee of $7.95 would later be billed $67.32 per month until they found a way to cancel. This monthly charge was purportedly meant to fund a $125 gift card for customers to use in what was referred to as a "best consumer gadget club." In other words, this was a hidden subscription scam, a topic that we previously reported about with another scam. previously reported about with another scam  The terms also showed the phone number (866) 877-1602. In a call we placed to this number, an automated voice message thanked us for calling "customer support." Just as we'd seen in past years with other scams involving CBD and keto weight loss gummies, no specific company name was announced like it would be when placing calls to legitimate businesses. If any readers fell victim to this scam, we recommend callingyour credit card company or the phone number for whatever payment method you used to make the purchase. Always bear in mind that if an online offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. Liles, Jordan. "This Cash App Email Scam About a Fake Deposit Could Cost You Thousands on Your Credit Card." Snopes, 19 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cash-app-scam-email-fake-deposit/. "Voyager Medium Crossgrain Leather Tote Bag."Michael Kors, https://www.michaelkors.com/voyager-medium-crossgrain-leather-tote-bag/_/R-US_30H7GV6T8L. "WHOIS Search."GoDaddy.Com, www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?domain=20mccsd.tech. FACT CHECK: Is President Obama compiling a "secret race database" comprised of "sensitive personal data"?      Claim:  President Obama is compiling a secret race database comprising Americans' sensitive personal data.  false WHAT'S   Extant data collection methods used by agencies such as HUD track demographic patterns, including race and integration trends.     WHAT'S /CONJECTURE:  The Obama administration is collecting demographic data for a broader racial purpose, the practice is new, and the openly-compiled data comprises a "secret race database." Example:  [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, July 2015] According to an article in the New York Post, President Obama is collecting a nefarious "secret race database." How much of this is true, and how much is misleading hype? So who are the racists again? Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE via @nypost https://t.co/63VmYIXqNE @nypost  Yes, Nick $earcy! (@yesnicksearcy) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   This is movie level horror material yet it's happening. It's real life. https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE https://t.co/LxxvA7EpyE  Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   I favor equal opportunity, not govt forcing equal results. This is Affirmative Action on steroids: https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica https://t.co/N3snUnie67 #WakeUpAmerica  Senator Dick Black (@SenRichardBlack) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   Obama collecting Americans' personal info for a secret race database https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf This makes my skin crawl @RandPaul https://t.co/1VNJqRsqQf @RandPaul  Alexis In NH (@AlexisinNH) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   Origins:   On 18 July 2015, the New York Post published an article titled "Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Database." The article made vague claims that President Obama (or agents of the government working on his behalf, described as "racial bean counters") had been quietly collecting sensitive, personal data about American citizens for purposes of racial justice: Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama's racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school  all to document "inequalities" between minorities and whites. This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make "disparate impact" cases against: banks that don't make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don't offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds. The paper offered up one example of the purported secret racial database's reach, pertaining to Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) data collection practices: The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups  white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino  and publish geospatial data pinpointing racial imbalances. No explanatory links to this nefarious database were provided, but we managed to hack our way into the program to get the full scoop. Actually, we entered "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" into Google's search box and immediately found HUD's page explaining the program and its purposes. program So secretive is this database that HUD has made numerous documents available describing its overall progress, including links to the Federal Register [PDF] and its most current Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy. (They even tried to bury it by issuing a press release about it.) A portion of that openly published, available for all to view documentation is described by HUD as "[updated data use methods] on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) [aim] to provide all HUD grantees with clear guidelines and the data that will help them to achieve those goals": PDF current press release HUDs rule clarifies and simplifies existing fair housing obligations for HUD grantees to analyze their fair housing landscape and set locally-determined fair housing priorities and goals through an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To aid communities in this work, HUD will provide open data to grantees and the public on patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity. This improved approach provides a better mechanism for HUD grantees to build fair housing goals into their existing community development and housing planning processes. In addition to providing data and maps, HUD will also provide technical assistance to aid grantees as they adopt this approach. In short, HUD will be using extant data to identify areas in which fair housing laws may not be functionally applied. Similarly, the Federal Register's lengthy (public, easy to find) summary stated: Through this rule, HUD commits to provide states, local governments, public housing agencies (PHAs), the communities they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible, with local and regional data on integrated and segregated living patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, the location of certain publicly supported housing, access to opportunity afforded by key community assets, and disproportionate housing needs based on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. Through the availability of such data and available local data an knowledge, the approach provided by this rule is intended to make program participants better able to evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues such as segregation, conditions that restrict fair housing choice, and disparities in access to housing and opportunity, identify the factors that primarily contribute to the creation or perpetuation of fair housing issues, and establish fair housing priorities and goals. The New York Post cited another shadowy instance of "racial bean counting": Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records. Again, the National Mortgage Database was hidden in plain sight. In seconds on Google, intrepid searchers could locate the Federal Housing Finance Agency's page devoted to the National Mortgage Database (upon which no mentions of race or racial equality appeared): page In 2012, FHFA began a major initiative to build a national mortgage database on first-lien single-family mortgages in existence any time from January 1998 forward. This project is being jointly funded and managed by FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The information will primarily be used to support the agencies' policy making and research efforts and help regulators better understand emerging mortgage and housing market trends in this evolving and changing finance market. Like the AFFH, the National Mortgage Database was also buried deep in the annals of the publicly accessible and searchable Federal Register. Federal Register From that point on, the Post's article primarily focused on purportedly nefarious and racially motivated actions by "Obama's brainchild," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (In actuality, the CFPB was primarily the "brainchild" of Elizabeth Warren and came into existence as part of Dodd-Frank related financial reforms.) The article claimed the CFPB was compiling separate databases for credit profiles and employment. We were able to locate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) document dated September 2014 [PDF] concerning collection of credit data. However, no portion of that document mentioned race, and we were unable to locate any documents, articles, or other information relating to race-based initiatives and employment efforts undertaken by the CFPB as suggested by the New York Post's article. Elizabeth Warren PDF A final portion of the article claimed that the Department of Education was enforcing segregation by way of race-based data collection (implicitly, at the behest of President Obama). However, a (not secret)  page on the U.S. Department of Education's web site indicated that data collection of that description had been ongoing since at least 2000 (eight years before the election of Barack Obama to the presidency). page Last updated:  22July 2015 Originally published: 22July 2015 In mid-November 2015, many Internet users became aware that Google returned an interesting search result to those who asked the search engine if farting burned calories: aware    Although Google may return the results shown above to such a query, the source the search engine cited for this information, a Facebook page called "F A C T," does not offer any evidence proving this claim. In fact, the only source provided by "F A C T" was Google itself: "Google is your friend if you think these facts are false." page The Facebook page "F A C T," however, didn't pull this number out of thin air. The claim that a single fart burns approximately 67 calories has been floating around the internet since at least 2009, when an Internet troll responded to a question on ChaCha thusly:  question How many calories does farting burn? The amount of calories burned by farting would depend on how long the fart lasts and how much energy you use to do it. Some people believe you can burn up to 67 calories by releasing gas. It should be noted that similar inquiries posed via ChaCha also prompted answers of less than one calorie, not very many calories, and no calories. less not very many no So how many calories do you burn during a single fart? Unsurprisingly, we weren't able to uncover much scientific research on the subject. But according to a post on the web site Fat Loss School, the number is much lower than 67: number Some people get a bit desperate when it comes to weight loss. They start wondering which of their daily activities burns enough calories to warrant increasing the frequency. We get questions about calorie consumption in a host of different scenarios. But perhaps the strangest question posed to date is: how many calories do you burn by farting? If you take a moment to think about this, the answer is rather obvious: none! When you fart, your muscles relax and the gas pressure in your bowels do all the work in expelling the gas. The only way you would achieve a measureable figure in the calories burned farting is if you really strained yourself to the limit. On April 14, 2010, former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin addressed a tea party event in Boston and tried to characterize the scale of the tax burden in the United States.Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves, she said.By making her point this way, Palin was using a yardstick that receives both attention and criticism every April 15, the day federal tax returns are due. So we thought it would be as good a time as any to look once again at the skirmishing over Tax Freedom Day. (Welast studied the questionmore than two years ago, when Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee cited a similar statistic.) Tax Freedom Day is the date when Americans . . . have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels, according to the Tax Foundation, the Washington, D.C.-based group that has calculated it for decades and also determined it retroactively back to 1900.The foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day by taking the amount of tax revenue collected and dividing it by national income created, producing an average tax burden for the U.S. economy as a whole. That percentage is then multiplied by 365 to calculate the number of days over the course of a year it would take to pay off the entire tax burden. (The calculation counts every day of the year, not adjusting for weekends, holidays or leap years. )To determine tax revenue, the foundation adds together individual income taxes paid at every governmental level; payroll taxes, the federal levies that fund Social Security and Medicare; sales and excise taxes, which are typically collected at the state and local level; corporate income taxes; property taxes; and other miscellaneous taxes such as those for car licenses, energy or mineral production and estates.The Tax Foundation also offers state-specific Tax Freedom Days. These range from 85 for Alaska (Palin's home state) and Louisiana to 117 for higher-tax Connecticut. But the national average is 99.So if we measure Palin by how closely her figure tracks with the current Tax Freedom Day statistic, she scores well. She rounded up from 99 to 100 -- close enough in our book -- and she used the national average rather than any state figure, which is appropriate.Still, before giving Palin the Truth-O-Meter seal of approval, we need to determine whether she described the number's meaning accurately. And this requires delving into the annual debate over how useful the Tax Freedom Day concept is.The Tax Foundation's loyal antagonist in this annual battle is the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP doesn't suggest that Tax Freedom Day is a bad statistic; it acknowledges that it's a perfectly fine tool if you need to compare the level of taxation in different countries, or measure how the tax burden has changed over time.However, CBPP does cite a number of complaints. We're ignoring a bunch that aren't addressed by Palin's comment, such as concerns over how the state-by-state tax burdens are calculated.The one criticism by CBPP that we do think is relevant to Palin's comment is the argument that Tax Freedom Day ignores differences in how much Americans of different income levels pay in taxes.The Tax Foundation's number represents an average tax burden for the economy as a whole. But CBPP argues that the foundation's number is not a good measure of what a typical taxpayer pays. To explain the difference, CBPP offers the following example:Suppose four families with incomes of $50,000 each pay $2,500 in taxes  5 percent of their income  while one wealthy family with income of $300,000 pays $90,000 in taxes  30 percent of its income. Total income among these five families is $500,000, and the total amount paid in taxes is $100,000. Thus, 20 percent of the total income of the five families goes to pay taxes. But the 20 percent figure is highly misleading as an indicator of the typical tax burden for families in this group, since four of the five families have tax rates just one-fourth of that amount.This is obviously an extreme case, and William Ahern, the Tax Foundation's director of policy and communications, countered that in the real world of taxation, the differences between taking a strict average (as the Tax Foundation does) and using a median figure (which would more closely reflect patterns of income distribution) aren't that great. CBPP cites research showing that the difference is significant.CBPP argues that there's enough income inequality in the United States, and enough progressivity in the tax code, to undermine the usefulness of Tax Freedom Day calculations. That's because a sizable majority of taxpayers must work significantly fewer days to pay off their tax bill -- and a minority must work significantly more days. So any attempt to suggest that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American -- as opposed to one on the higher end of the income spectrum -- may be problematic.The good news for the Truth-O-Meter is that we don't have to resolve this dispute in order to rate Palin's comment -- we only need to make sure that Palin described accurately the statistic she was using. The bad news in this particular case is that Palin's phrasing is a bit elliptical, making it difficult to parse her words. Palin said, Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves. That's pretty close to what the Tax Foundation said in its own release -- Americans will work well over three months of the year  from Jan. 1 to April 9  before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels. Both Palin and the Tax Foundation avoid saying that Tax Freedom Day represents the experience of a typical American, which would have been a more problematic phrasing. Our graduated tax system, which is weighted more heavily on the wealthy, means that the average amount paid is skewed upward by a smaller number of wealthy people who pay a lot. In other words, there are many, many more people who would fall under the 100-day threshold mentioned by Palin than over it. We think listeners take Palin as referring to what a typical American pays in taxes, since she didn't specify otherwise. Leaving that impression in listeners' minds, we knock her statement down to Mostly True. Editor's note: Fact-checking whether Trump tweeted about 'Dow Joans' and presidents being shot out of a cannon? That's over here. here Between 10 and 11 October 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped 1,378 points in value. Along with significant losses in other market indices (such as the S&P 500), this decline prompted sober and informed analysis, but also partisan criticism of President Donald Trump, who has set a precedent of claiming credit for positive stock market trends.  analysis claiming credit Against that background, critics of the president shared what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet from 2012 in which Trump supposedly proclaimed, "If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately!" RETWEET AND LIKE TO SPREAD THIS OLD TRUMP TWEET! pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn pic.twitter.com/GwsJl189pn  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 11, 2018 October 11, 2018 Since the Dow Jones had indeed dropped by more than 1,000 points in two days (the argument went), President Trump, in accordance with his own pronouncement, ought to be removed from office, or even resign. This was advocated with great gusto on Twitter in the aftermath of the October 2018 loss: The Dow has dropped 1,377 points in the last two days. Oh @realDonaldTrump, your self from six years ago would like a word with you. Alternatively, you could save us all a lot of time and money and just resign immediately. pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/x1mw31pvMR  Stephen Schwartz (@AtomicAnalyst) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 Sooo, @realDonaldTrump..... @realDonaldTrump For a 2-day trump slump of minus-1,300 to the Dow, by your "logic" you should be impeached immediately AND thrown in jail! #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD #Sad pic.twitter.com/qLJUuctGvD  BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 @realDonaldTrump impeach Trump .. Dow is down 1,300 points https://t.co/31MNdEkePB @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/31MNdEkePB  alex taye (@ChakluTaye) October 12, 2018 October 12, 2018 But there is no record of Trump having posted such a tweet on 6 November 2012, or on any other date. Since it's conceivable that he published it then deleted it, we can't reach a definitive conclusion as to whether or not it is genuine. However, there are good reasons to doubt its authenticity. no record Firstly, it is strikingly similar to another tweet which was revealed to have been a hoax in February 2018, after another massive loss for the Dow Jones. On that occasion, Shaun Usher -- who runs the popular "Letters of Note" blog -- admitted to having fabricated an "old Trump tweet" from 2015, in which the presidential candidate was supposed to have proclaimed:  hoax loss If the Dow Joans [sic] ever falls more than 1000 "points" in a Single Day the sitting president should be "loaded" into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!    Secondly, there is no record of the 2012 tweet existing before 11 October 2018. The earliest instance we could find was the purported screenshot posted on that date by Twitter user Travis Allen. Despite searching Twitter and online news archives from 2012 onward, we did not find a single reference to Trump advocating the impeachment of the U.S. president in the event of a significant stock market drop. Twitter Nobody made reference to such a tweet despite almost six years passing -- not even when the Dow Jones dropped 1,175 points on 5 February 2018.  Also, we could find no variances in screenshots of the purported tweet. Every instance shows the same number of retweets and likes, and the same set of thumbnail avatars. Additional screenshots displaying variations in the number of retweets and likes, and/or different avatars, would at least suggest that someone besides Travis Allen had taken note of the tweet and kept a record of it (although that, in itself, would not amount to definitive corroboration).  As it stands, the case for the tweet's authenticity rests entirely on a sole Twitter user (out of hundreds of millions) having taken a screenshot of it between 6 November 2012 and 11 October 2018, before it could have been deleted.  Finally, the person who posted the earliest known instance of the tweet has a history of posting anti-Trump "sharebait," a fact that casts even more reasonable doubt on its authenticity.  Allen's own 11 October tweet implores readers to "retweet and like to spread this old Trump tweet." This effort to garner shares and engagement is a common feature of his Twitter account. In the week leading up to the "Dow Jones" screenshot, Allen published nine tweets that included requests that readers share and like his content. For example:  Remember when Trump said he was going to build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it? ??? RT and like if you remember!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 9, 2018 October 9, 2018 Many many people are saying that Brett Kavanaugh is the WORST SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE! Retweet and like if you agree!  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018 The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two leading figures in the movement to end sexual violence as a weapon of war. Remember when #MAGA thought Trump was going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for getting a picture with Kim Jong Un? ??? #MAGA RT if you remember! pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj pic.twitter.com/lChHDFAwMj  Travis Allen ? (@TravisAllen02) October 5, 2018 October 5, 2018   A pattern of posting partisan sharebait does not prove that Allen's "Dow Jones" tweet was fake, but it justifies further skepticism about its authenticity.  We sent Allen a message asking him whether he fabricated the tweet, and, if not, whether he could provide the date on which he captured a screenshot of it, its URL, or an archive link to it. We did not receive a response.  Chang, Sue; Vlastelica, Ryan. "U.S. Stocks Close Lower as Dow Drops Nearly 1,400 Points in 2 Days."
 Marketwatch. 11 October 2018. Rampell, Catherine. "The Stock Market Under Trump vs. Obama."
 The Washington Post. 1 May 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did Trump Tweet That the President Should Be Shot Out of a Cannon If the Stock Market Tanked?"
 Snopes.com. 5 February 2018. Phipps, Claire; Wearden, Graeme; Fletcher, Nick. "Australian and Asian Stock Markets Slide After Dow Suffers Biggest One-Day Points Fall -- As It Happened."
 The Guardian. 6 February 2018. State Rep. Mike Villarreal maintains the state tax system, untended by ruling Republicans, needs a full review. In a Jan. 7 op-ed column in theSan Antonio Express-News, the San Antonio Democrat wrote that Republicans have ignored the fact that over the last decade our population has been growing three times faster than our state tax system.Were not gauging what Republicans notice, but wondered if Villarreal correctly compared population growth and state taxes.In an interview, Villarreal told us he drew his population counts from the state demographer, Lloyd Potter, and fiscal information from annual cash reports by the state comptrollers office, adjusting figures for inflation to reflect 2009 dollars. Villarreal said he considered all state taxes including sales and franchise taxes and taxes on motor fuels, vehicle sales, tobacco and alcohol products, insurance and oil and natural gas production.He said he prepared a spreadsheet in consultation with experts including Dale Craymer, president of the business-oriented Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, and Eva De Luna Castro, senior budget analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities, which has made a case for Texas to create a state personal income tax.According to Villarreal, the states population increased 19 percent from 1999 to 2009, from 20.9 million to 24.8 million. In 2000, according to Villarreal, inflation-adjusted state taxes generated $35.8 billion. In 2009, the comparable total was $37.8 billion, up 6 percent.So, Villarreal said, population increased three times faster than annual state tax revenue.What we noticed: Villarreals spreadsheet also showed that money from non-tax revenue such as state fees went up 13 percent, trailing population growth, while federal aid surged 47 percent, more than double the rate of population growth. State income from all sources, including federal aid, increased 26 percent.Next, Villarreal shared a revised spreadsheet indicating that revenue from all sources increased 19 percent--not 26 percent. In an e-mail, Villarreal said he fixed an error that had me over-counting non-tax revenue and as a result over-counting total revenue from all sources. He said hed inadvertently double-counted the federal aid, but stressed the error did not bear on his comparison of state taxes to population growth.Even in the revised version, we noted, all revenue to state government increased at about the same pace as population growth. Villarreal agreed, but said that the bulk of money from all sources--which broke down in 2009 to 45 percent from state taxes, 18.5 percent from state non-tax revenue and 37 percent from federal funds--consists of dollars dedicated to specific purposes. His point: Lawmakers cant easily tap such sources, which include public college tuition, to support general needs such as public education and health care.We sought outside perspective.Craymer of TTARA, which represents businesses and trade associations, said Villarreals work leads to a flawed conclusion--that the states main revenue source, the sales tax, is undependable.If there is a systemic problem with the tax system, Craymer said, its probably that it reflects the economy, which was rocked by two recessions in the decade. So its not surprising to me that sales taxes would not have kept pace with population.Craymer said too that any analysis varies due to the time period it covers. For instance, he said, sales tax revenues steadily rose from 2005 through 2007.Lobbyist James LeBas, formerly the states chief revenue estimator, offered a per-person breakdown of Texas taxes over the decade, adjusted for inflation, which also took into account property taxes levied by local governmental units. LeBas, who said his figures came from the comptrollers office, said in an e-mail that from 2000 to 2010, taxes per person grew slightly faster than inflation--by 37 percent compared to the 27 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. In 2000, he said, Texas taxes per person, adjusted for inflation, amounted to $2,180; the 2010 figure was $2,195.LeBas, summing up, said the tax system has produced a stable, if unremarkable, amount of revenue per capita, even adjusted for inflation.We asked De Luna of the CPPP for her perspective on per-capita state plus local taxes. She suggested that combining state taxes and locally levied property taxes obscures the fact state taxes have dropped. Drawing on figures published by the comptroller in January 2011, she said 3.6 percent of personal income in Texas went to state taxes in 2010--down from the 4.4-percent level of 2001.Next, we asked LeBas to focus on state taxes alone. He reported that inflation-adjusted per-capita state taxes were $1,210 in 2000 but $1,145 in 2009. The 5-percent decrease reflected slower growth in state taxes than population.DeLuna floated another way to pit changes in taxes and population. She said average annual rates of change can be more  meaningful than comparing a recent year to an earlier year. The year-by-year average helps put numbers in a better context for the average person, she said. From 1999 to 2009, she said, the states average annual population growth, 2 percent, compared to inflation-adjusted growth in state revenue of .8 percent and inflation-adjusted growth in all funds of 1.7 percent.Finally, we asked DeLuna the question wed asked Villarreal: If revenue to the state from all sources pretty much kept pace with population growth, should there be a beef? DeLuna replied that revenue from all sources soared mainly because of federal aid, which the comptroller expects to drop in 2012-13. Also, she said, lawmakers perpetually added to the states funding burdens in 2006 by cutting local school property tax rates and committing the state to cover the difference going forward.Phew. What a seminar.Our take: Villarreals analysis disregards that state revenue from all sources, in part due to increased federal aid, about matched population growth from 2000 through 2009. He also disregards property taxes, which are affected by legislative decisions.That said, his statement accurately compares population to state taxes, which are, as he said, the taxes lawmakers directly set.We rate the statement Mostly True. On Aug. 23, 2020, bystanders' cellphone videos captured a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shooting a Black man, Jacob Blake, multiple times as he opened the door to his vehicle. The footage went viral on social media and sparked deadly protests in the lakeside city over racism in American policing. Jacob Blake deadly protests One video, which a neighbor recorded from a second-story apartment nearby, showed Blake, 29, trying to get into his SUV from the driver-side door as a police officer pointed a gun at him, grabbed him by his shirt and then fired several times  shooting Blake in the back. Another clip documented the scene from the ground level, as children and other witnesses watched from a yard. The officer who fired his weapon was identified as Rusten Sheskey, according to Wisconsin's attorney general. video clip identified The day after the shooting, which left Blake paralyzed from the waist down as of this writing, advocates for police reform argued that if those witnesses had not taken out their phones, the public would not have known about the officers' use of potentially-lethal force. It was unclear whether dashboard cameras on squad cars captured the incident, and Kenosha officers do not wear body cameras  leading tools for holding officers accountable for their actions. paralyzed Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Blake's family, as well as other high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans, including the relatives of George Floyd, tweeted: representing George Floyd,  We considered his underlying claim to be this: Kenosha city leaders approved an "ordinance" in 2017 that "required" all of Kenosha's roughly 200 police officers to wear body cameras, but, despite that active policy, the city had not purchased the technology as of August 2020. Additionally, the lawyer alleged the city was planning to buy the devices in 2022. First, to find any evidence of a 2017 policy that would make body cameras mandatory for all officers, Snopes combed through meeting agendas and minutes for the Kenosha Common Council  the city's 17-member group with the authority to write legislation for the city of roughly 100,000 people between Milwaukee and Chicago. We found an archived video of a council committee meeting on Feb. 27, 2017, where former Alderperson Kevin Mathewson asked the group to approve a formal request for the mayor to set aside city funding in the following year's budget to outfit officers with body cameras. "The city, unfortunately, has been a little slow to implement much technology," he said in his testimony. "If we can help document incidents better, and give the [district attorney] tools to make quicker convictions with less resources, we can save cops from violence ... I think it's a great thing." Roughly one month later, on March 20, 2017, the council unanimously approved the below-displayed resolution  not an ordinance and not Mathewson's budget proposal  that formalized city leaders' support for the devices. But that move was largely a statement to urge state legislators and then-Gov. Scott Walker to establish guidelines for how local police departments store and release the cameras' data, not an enforceable policy to make the devices mandatory for Kenosha officers. approved    Notably, the resolution stated: [I]mplementation of Body Worn Cameras for officers of the Kenosha Police Department is dependent on resolution of policy concerns associated with matters such as usage, storage, requirements, Public Record limitation, and privacy issues involving Body Worn Cameras.  In other words, it was true to state Kenosha city leaders expressed support for equipping police officers with body cameras in 2017, but they did not mandate the technology. Rather, its adoption hinged on if or when the state passed an all-encompassing law governing the devices, per the resolution. (In February 2020, Gov. Tony Evers passed a law outlining body camera regulations for police agencies.) passed A note on semantics here: According to the city of Kenosha's Code of General Ordinances, the council adopts both ordinances and resolutions with its legislative authority, though the latter are temporary in nature and often used for establishing fees and permits, while the former are municipal laws. Calling the March 2017 measure about body cameras an ordinance, like the claim alleged, was incorrect; it did not create an enforceable policy. Code of General Ordinances Next, we searched for any proof to confirm or deny another aspect of the claim: that the city had not purchased the devices as of August 2020. We learned that was true. A February 2020 story by Kenosha News said neither the city police department nor the Kenosha county Sheriff's Department used body-worn cameras. And the day after Blake's shooting, on Aug. 24, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian confirmed to reporters that the city had not yet purchased the technology but had plans to do so. story confirmed Lastly, we looked for documentation of those efforts that would tell us if the city was indeed preparing to spend the money in 2022 and then deploy the cameras after that. For that step, Snopes reviewed the city's 2020 operating budget, which included a four-year plan for spending on police department projects. That 445-page document included the below-displayed table and confirmed that the city was indeed preparing to spend $200,000 on police body cameras in 2022. 445-page document  Rocco LaMacchia, chairman of the councils public safety committee, told The Associated Press the city initially planned to buy the devices in 2020, but funding shortfalls and technological concerns prompted the city to delay the purchase for two years. We have moved it back so many times, he said in the Aug. 25, 2020, story. I got a feeling this is going to move up on the ladder really fast because of whats going on around the United States right now." The Associated Press In sum, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehood. It was accurate to claim Kenosha leaders unanimously endorsed the use of body cameras in 2017, though it was false to say they created an enforceable policy, or an ordinance, to require all police officers to wear the devices. Additionally, it was true to assert the city had not bought the devices as of August 2020 and was planning to make the purchase in 2022. Mathewson, Kevin.  "Urge The Mayor To Include Funding For Police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) In The 2018 CIP."
  City of Kenosha.  Accessed 26 August 2020. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "Senate Bill 50."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Police Department.  "2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Zampanti, Jeffrey.  "Body Cameras Gaining Popularity Despite Challenges."
  Kenosha News.  29 February 2020. Foley, Ryan.  "Kenosha Delayed Body Cameras For Years Before Black Shooting."
 The Associated Press.  25 August 2020. Kenosha News.  "In Photos: County Board Committees Consider Body Cams For Sheriff's Department."
  17 July 2020. Kenosha News. "Body Camera Funds Shouldn't Go By The Wayside."
  27 March 2020. Jones, Meg and Joe Taschler. "Less Than 3 Minutes Passed Between When Kenosha Police Arrived And When Jacob Blake Was Shot, According To Dispatch Audio."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 25 August 2020. Bosman, Julie, and Sarah Mervosh.  "Wisconsin Reels After Police Shooting And Second Night of Protests."
 The New York Times.  24 August 2020. In March 2018, a Facebook post deriding "Trump haters" and touting one of the president's accomplishments  an executive order that grants veterans free health care at any hospital in the United States  started going viral: post   For all the Trump haters; today President Trump signed an executive order allowing our veterans to get 100% medical bills paid at hospitals other than a V.A. hospital. This will save the lives of many American service men and women who have been on V.A. waiting lists, some for years and many dying while waiting. Now they can go to ANY hospital they want... This is how our veterans SHOULD be treated!!! Thanks President Trump!!! There are a number of problems with this Facebook post, starting with the claim that President Donald Trump signed an executive order "today" (5 March 2018). A list of Presidential actions (including executive orders) available on the White House's web site shows that no executive order at all, whether for veteran's health care or anything else, was signed on this date.  list The language in this post seems to be referring to the Veterans Choice Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in August 2014. President Trump signed a bill to extend this program a few months before it was set to expire in August 2017: Veterans Choice Act signed signed President Donald Trump extended the Veterans Choice Act on Wednesday to set the stage for a push in Congress to expand the program and allow more access to private care for veterans. Flanked by veterans at an Oval Office ceremony, the president signed the bill to extend the Choice program, which was to expire on Aug. 7, and allow the expenditure of the remaining $950 million in the program. This was not an executive order; furthermore, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 did not accomplish all of the things set out in this Facebook post, such as grant free health care at any hospital. Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014  The Veterans Choice Program expanded the "availability of medical services for eligible Veterans with community providers," but it did not grant veterans the opportunity to receive completely free health care at any hospital of their choosing. A fact sheet provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs laid out the criteria for veterans to seek health care outside established providers: Veterans Choice Program fact sheet As directed by the Choice Act, VA will administer the Veterans Choice Fund to implement the Veterans Choice Program (the Program). The Program will operate for 3 years or until the Fund is exhausted. The Program will provide Veterans who were enrolled as of August 1, 2014 or eligible to enroll as a recently discharged combat Veteran with a Veterans Choice Card, and allow those Veterans who are unable to schedule an appointment within 30 days of their preferred date or the clinically appropriate date, or on the basis of their place of residence to elect to receive care from eligible non-VA health care entities or providers. This is separate from VAs existing program providing Veterans care outside of the VA system. Eligible non-VA entities or providers must enter into agreements with VA to furnish care, must maintain the same or similar credentials and licenses as VA providers, and must submit to VA a copy of any medical records related to care and services provided under the Program for inclusion in the Veterans VA electronic medical record. The VA elaborated on the criteria that veterans must meet in order to seek treatment at outside providers. Even then, the choice of hospitals is limited to the facilities that have agreed to participate in the program. Furthermore, this bill does not include a provision stating that it covered all of the health care provided at these facilities. Some veterans may be eligible for free health care services, but most are required to pay for a portion of their treatment: elaborated eligible While many Veterans qualify for free healthcare services based on a VA compensable service-connected condition or other special eligibilities, most Veterans are required to complete a financial assessment or means test at the time of enrollment to determine if they qualify for free health care services. Veterans whose income exceed VA income limits as well as those who choose not to complete the financial assessment at the time of enrollment, must agree to pay required copays for health care services to become eligible for VA healthcare services.  The future of the program is uncertain, however. Critics of the program say that it's too expensive, and that it could eventually lead to downsizing. Critics Hicks, Josh.  "A Simple Summary of the New VA Bill."
  The Washington Post.  29 July 2014. Jackson, David.  "Obama Signs Veterans Health Care Bill."
  USA Today.  7 August 2014. Rein, Lisa.  "Its Killing the Agency: Ugly Power Struggle Paralyzes Trumps Plan to Fix Veterans Care."
  The Washington Post.  9 March 2018. Sisk, Richard.  "Trump Signs Bill to Extend Veterans Choice Program."
  Military.com.  19 April 2017. Clint Eastwood's Academy Award-winning work includes four Oscars: Best Director and Best Actor in a Leading Role for both 1993's "Unforgiven" and 2004's "Million Dollar Baby." Eastwood's work spans decades, and some of his roles were uncredited. For example, he briefly appeared in 1995's "Casper." Also, since at least September 2020 he appeared uncredited in none other than an online advertisement that read: "Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." appeared an online advertisement Of course, Eastwood had nothing to do with the dubious ad. Further, he was not dead. As of December 2020, Clint Eastwood was alive and filming a new movie during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 90-year-old actor was born on May 31, 1930. filming a new movie The misleading advertisements that falsely claimed Eastwood's net worth "left his family in tears" led readers to a seemingly endless, multi-page story on refinancegold.com. The headline for the slideshow-style article read: "Special Celebs & Their Incredible Net Worth." story Clint Eastwood's name finally appeared on page 225 after readers had clicked "Next" 225 times, right before the end of the story. The page included no mention of his family being left "in tears." Clint Eastwood ~ $375 Million  (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images for AFI)  Clint Eastwood is Hollywoods 70s star who has had a long and fruitful acting career in succeeding decades, mostly portraying rough-and-tough characters in Western settings. These days, he is one a highly accomplished director. He is best known for his roles in the Dollars Trilogy and Dirty Harry films. With a $375-million net fortune in his bank account from his long career as an actor, producer and director in show business, he will never need to ask for a loan in his life ever again. We previously covered other misleading net worth advertisements for Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, Jaleel White, and Richard Gere. White and Gere were both still alive. Alex Trebek Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere On the TrustPilot.com reviews website, a user named Paul H. posted a one-star review for refinancegold.com, the website that created the misleading Clint Eastwood advertisement: posted a one-star review Hurtful Misleading Ad to Draw You In Their morally despicable ad to draw you to their website should warn you right off of having anything to do with this company. The hook was:"Clint Eastwood's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears" (accompanied by a pic of Clint looking distraught and at death's door - the sort of pic we could all be caught with at the wrong time of the day). I'm not particularly a fan of Clint Eastwood but as far as I know he's very much alive and not going bankrupt any time soon. I'm sure he doesn't need me to defend him, but this sort of ad is hurtful to those who love him, deceitful and without conscience. Avoid this company like the plague, how far can you trust people who are willing to draw you in with that sort of ad? Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us