Is Maxine Waters Changing 'Memorial Day' to 'George Floyd Day'?
As Memorial Day approached in May 2021, a rumor started circulating on social media alleging that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters had introduced a bill to rename the federal holiday to "George Floyd Day": George Floyd   Waters did not introduce any bills to rename Memorial Day. This piece of text, which read: "Maxine Waters just introduced a bill to re-name Memorial Day George Floyd Day. Are you FRICK'N kidding me?" was repeated verbatim across a wide range of colorful backgrounds. No matter how many times this message was repeated, and no matter how vibrant of a background was used, this rumor remained utterly false. A list of bills that have been introduced in Congress can be seen at Congress.gov. This government website also allows users to sort these bills by politicians. When we go to the page for Waters, we can see that the California politician has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills in 2021  such as legislation that would "provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease" and "to allow Americans to earn paid sick time"  but Waters has not introduced legislation that would result in the renaming of Memorial Day. Congress.gov page for Waters provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease to allow Americans to earn paid sick time Waters did co-sponsor the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, but that bill had nothing to do with the annual federal holiday. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which would address "a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability," was passed by the House in March 2021, but has not yet received a vote in the U.S. Senate. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021
On 6 April 2016, the Facebook page "Worldwide Infidels United" published the above-reproduced meme, along with the following text: published This is Sajid Muhammed, a Muslim man living in the UK. In 2002 he set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwitch and only got 2 year in prison! He was released early to appease the local Muslims protesting against his arrest! SHARE if you think he should be hung! The text included a photograph of theactor Ian Hart, who portrayed Professor Quirinus Quirrell in the film adaptation ofHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Professor Quirinus Quirrell    The meme achieved tens of thousands of shares; alarge number of those sharing were in on the joke, but not all of them.Some were outraged: I'm not sure on the death penalty but he should served his sentence then been deported n not allowed a passport again pure evil the system over here stinks It's unbelievable what these Muslims get away with in our country what is our government trying to do .God Help Us Others were offended for different reasons: Whoever put up this post should be prosecuted for using a misleading image from Harry Potter and The Philosophers stone to promote racist comment whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself! And you need to apologise to the Muslim community for peddling such lies! Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence! Putting asideany individual reader or commenter's interpretation, "World Infidels United" was not ananti-Muslim page, nor was its content meant to be taken literally. Additional content on the page clarifiedits satirical nature:  Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016  Please share to help spread the word! Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016 The meme's maker was mocking British people who shared similar (but serious) anti-Muslim memes on Facebook, and wasn't literally claiming that Professor Quirrell set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwich. Claim:  The Boy Scouts of America has lost some funding over its refusal to accept homosexuals within its ranks. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Good Morning,As near as I can tell the following is a real concern and not a hoax.  The Boy Scouts need all the support they can get.  The request is to sign a petition in their support in response to the many funding sources that have withdrawn support due to the issue that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. Also many Federal Parks that now will not permit them to use that facility. You can access this issue at the following address. https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 They also provide a series of statements of what has happened concerning the removal of support. Thanks for your interest Origins:  The petition quoted above began circulating on the Internet in October 2000.  It calls upon folks to electronically sign a petition in support of the Boy Scouts. (The Boy Scouts of America are not sponsoring this petition; an unrelated entity is housing and administering it.)  The petition (found at the Grassfire site) reads as follows: PETITION TO SUPPORT THE BOY SCOUTS!!As a concerned citizen, I am deeply troubled by the recent attacks which have come against the Boy Scouts simply because the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has every right to set standards for leadership and morality. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear! I urge you to cease these hostile attacks against one of America's great institutions. Should you sign it? The answer to that depends on two things: What your views on the underlying issues are,  as well as what you think of the validity of online petitions.  We think it's not at all likely any Internet petition (no matter what issue it addresses) will have an appreciable impact on anyone in a position to affect policy. It's too easy to cook up lists of fake names and phony e-mail addresses and festoon a petition with them for anyone charged with gauging public reaction to be tempted to give such documents much weight when it comes time to make a decision. Petitions signed in ink in a variety of different handwritings aren't given all that much consideration in this world; how valid will a computer printout appear? A decision to support this petition should probably be based on what one thinks of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. The Grassfire petition glosses the question of why support is being sought by saying nothing other than "the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values." This wording leaves those who weren't aware of the core issue in the dark as to what prompted folks to withdraw support from the BSA. We don't find that a fair way to write a petition. In a 5-to-4 opinion handed down on 28 June 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the Boy Scouts of America held the right as a private group to expel scoutmaster James Dale on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court ruled: Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law [the statute contended in a New Jersey suit involving Dale] to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts' freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does. Grassfire expresses its view of the issues at stake as: This summer, the Scouts won a hard-fought case before the U.S. Supreme Court called Dale v. Scouts. The Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts right to set standards for leadership within their organization. This apparently infuriated the politically correct cultural elites. Almost immediately, the anti-Scout campaign was launched, with the Scouts being branded as intolerant. The standard affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dale vs. Scouts, which recognized the BSA's right to determine how to run its organization, also applies to the groups who would now withhold funding from the Scouts: they too possess the right of association. Some local chapters of the United Way are guided by policies that expressly forbid them from financially supporting groups that practice discrimination. They have discontinued funding of the Boy Scouts of America because their entrenched principles  rule out this association in much the same way the BSA's principles rule out an association with homosexuals. It's the same issue, just the other side of the coin. At this point, only a few chapters of the United Way have withdrawn financial support from the Boy Scouts of America. Some municipalities are also now refusing to allow Scout troops to use municipal sites for camping and rallies. United Way funding to the BSA has not yet been substantially affected, however. A rough estimate of loss of beneficence over this issue places the figure at $500,000 a year out of budget hundreds of times that. (In 1996, for example, United Way funding of the BSA amounted to $83,743,000.)  As to what to make of the core issue behind the petition, it comes down to this: The Boy Scouts uphold their deeply-held beliefs by barring homosexuals from becoming scouts or scoutmasters. That stand, however, impels organizations who have sworn to refuse aid to those who practice discrimination to now recognize the Boy Scouts of America as one of the groups they must turn away. Barbara "one good turn deserves another" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2007    Sources:   Parker, Laura and Guillermo Garcia.  "Boy Scout Troops Lose Funds, Meeting Places."   USA Today.  10 October 2000  (p. A1).     Zernike, Kate.  "Scouts' Successful Ban on Gays is Followed by Loss in Support."   The New York Times.  29 August 2000  (p. A1). On 7 August 2016, the web site The American Mirror published an article reporting that Hillary Clinton's "health condition" should be a "major issue" of the 2016 presidential race, along with two photographs purportedly showing Clinton being helped up a flight of stairs:  SHOCK PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign. The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home. The photographs received wider attention when they were shared by conservative commentator Matt Drudge on Twitter:  Other pro-Donald Trump web pages paired the above-displayed photographs with images of Donald Trump ascending stairs with ease: images Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States. Donald Trump on his way the presidency of the United States.  While the above-displayed photographs are real, they are not the "latest evidence" of Clinton's alleged poor health, nor are they by themselves indicative of any significant health problems. The photographs were originally published in February 2016, more than five months before they started circulating on various right-wing web sites. When Getty Images published their photograph, it was accompanied with a caption explaining that it depicted Clinton being assisted as she had just slipped while walked up stairs in South Carolina: slipped Democratic Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slips as she walks up the stairs into the non-profit SC Strong, a 2 year residential facility that helps former felons, substance abusers, and homeless move into self-sufficiency February 24, 2016 in North Charleston. The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary is held on February 27. Although these photographs were offered as "proof" that Clinton is in such poor health that she needs constant accompaniment while ascending stairs, several photographs of the Democratic presidential nominee ascending and descending stairs without help from anyone are not difficult to find: several photographs ascending descending Claim:  Food tasters work on behalf of U.S. presidents. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Does President Obama have a food taster?  If so, is that unique to him, or is it standard policy?   Origins:  Food tasters are a concept long associated with important personages such as political leaders and business tycoons.  The most common image of a food taster is someone who serves as a guinea pig for his  employer, sampling meals before they are served to ensure that no one has tampered with them (particularly by introducing poison or some other harmful substance).  Food tasters can serve other functions, however, such as ensuring that foods do not include ingredients that, although ordinarily innocuous, might nonetheless pose a problem for a particular diner, such as wine used in the preparation of a dish intended for someone who is abstaining from alcohol, or an ingredient that a person with specific food allergies might have a sensitivity to.  Or a taster may simply function as someone who is intimately familiar with the preferences of his employer and serves to ensure that food is prepared to the latter's culinary satisfaction. Whether food tasters are employed on behalf of U.S. presidents when they're away from the White House is a subject that the Secret Service refrains from officially commenting on, but it's something of an open secret that they are: The US Secret Service has always refused to confirm that US presidents travel with a food "taster," in line with their policy of discretion on all security related issues. But it is known the Service goes to great lengths to scrutinise the source and the preparation of food served to US presidents whenever they eat out of the White House to ensure it is not tampered with. Nonetheless, a March 2013 report about President Obama's supposedly declining to partake of the main course during a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill because his taster was not present apparently took many readers by surprise: report "Unfortunately, you know, the president can't," said [Maine Senator Susan] Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting. "He looked longingly at it," Collins continued. "He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting." This is a subject the press has covered before, though.  When the Obamas visited France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day in June 2009, for example, the Agence France Presse reported: A US "taster" tested the food being dished up to President Barack Obama at a dinner in a French restaurant, a waiter said. "They have someone who tastes the dishes," said waiter Gabriel de Carvalho from the "La Fontaine de Mars" restaurant where Obama and his family turned up for dinner. "It wasn't very pleasant for the cooks at first, but the person was very nice and was relaxed, so it all went well," he said on the Itele news channel. The Obama Foodorama blog also noted of a September 2012 fundraiser in Tampa that: Obama Foodorama President Obama hailed Food Network star and celebrity chef Tyler Florence's menu as "outstanding" at a $20,000/plate dinner fundraiser held in the backyard of a mansion owned by a billionaire's daughter in the Palma Ceia neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.  Host of the show The Great Food Truck Race, Florence created a complicated six-course menu that included chicken fried quail, crispy fried pork belly, and a squash and quail egg ravioli.  The chef and his team  including wife Tolan Florence and pastry chef Matt Masera  tweeted comments, the menu and photos from behind the scenes, revealing that the President was accompanied at the event by a special food taster, identified as a White House chef. Mentions of presidential food tasters have also turned up in the media during earlier administrations, such as a New York Times account of President George W. Bush's inaugural lunch in January 2001: The president's tasters were on the job by 6 a.m., not just to make certain no one was trying to poison him, but to make sure the mushrooms that were to decorate the tenderloin of beef at the inaugural lunch for teetotaler George W. Bush were not cooked in wine. The tasters, Navy mess specialists who travel around the world with the president, watched the preparations in a makeshift kitchen just off Statuary Hall in the Capitol. [Correction: Although the president does not drink alcohol, his diet does not exclude foods prepared with it. A food taster who made sure on Jan. 20 that mushrooms for the meal were not cooked in wine had been told mistakenly that the president avoided alcohol in all foods.] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on restaurant screening efforts by a food taster when President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major visited that city in February 1994: As their staffs scrambled to assemble a five-hour whiz through Pittsburgh, President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major sent their appetites ahead of them. Planning went on with a team of advance schedulers and security experts fanning out to sites around the region for possible places for Major and Clinton to tour. The search for the right restaurant took special talents  a security man was sent to check out the food at area restaurants. "The guy appeared to be a professional food taster because he weighed about 400 pounds," said Tom Pastorius, owner of the Allegheny Brewery and Pub on the North Side, where a government agent walked in and announced he'd been ordered to check out the food for some very important potential diners. Food tasters were also mentioned in a New York Daily News article on White House perks published during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1992: Among the fringe benefits available to senior White House aides are budget-priced meals in the exclusive, Navy-run White House mess, and use of White House tennis courts and the presidential box at the Kennedy Center. A select few on the senior staff can pump iron in the Secret Service gym. The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries and White House staff receive a wide range of perks. President Bush gets the most, of course: rent-free housing in the Executive Mansion, free travel on luxurious helicopters, airplanes and armored limousines, a free weekend hideaway at Camp David, Md., and free medical care. He also has a tennis court, workout room, horseshoe pit, swimming pool, theater, bowling alley, extraordinarily well-kept gardens and a staff of more than 90 maids, butlers, carpenters, florists, electricians and cooks  and a food taster. Joe Murray also touched on the subject in a 1988 article for the Cox News Service: Everybody probably knew it but me, that Ronald Reagan has a food taster. How I found out was by reading all the way through the news story about the President suffering nausea, vomiting and related stomach problems. This was the night before his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, which, I suppose, is neither here nor there. Hardly anything I read surprises me much anymore. But the last paragraph was the exception: "As a security measure, Reagan's food is routinely tasted by an aide. (White House spokesman) Fitzwater said he did not know if the tester had also become ill." Last updated:  17 March 2013    Murray, Joe.  "Let's Consider This Presidential Food Taster Thing."   The [Daytona Beach] News-Journal.  26 January 1988  (p. A4).    Roddy, Dennis B.  "Food Taster Precedes Clinton and Major."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  26 February 1994  (p. A1).    Agence France Presse.  "President Obama's French Food Tested by 'Taster.'"   7 June 2009.    [New York] Daily News.  "Congress, Losing Perks, Takes Long Look at Others'."   31 March 1992. Claim:  New York City pedestrians ignored a freezing, homeless child for two hours.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] You'll never guess who finally helped this homeless child freezing on the NYC streets. WOW  Origins:  On 23 February 2015, a video titled "The Freezing Homeless Child! (Social Experiment)" was published to YouTube by OckTV. The clip rapidly spread on blogs and social networks under clickbaiting titles such as "The homeless child was freezing to death while no one approached him. I never thought this guy would be the only one!" Within days, the video had been shared millions of times. While the footage tugged at many heartstrings, its creators were somewhat upfront about its staged nature. Dubbing the video a "social experiment," its publishers admitted that the child was neither legitimately homeless nor freezing in a manner that was anything more than incidental and deliberate. They claimed the "social experiment" (a term often used to excuse a number of unpleasant or deceitful  behaviors through the premise of illustrating a point) was designed to prove that the citizens of New York City would not be moved by the child's hypothetical plight, even in unusually cold weather.  Several aspects of the story were shaky, implausible, or simply far too scripted. First, the viral video producers claimed that the child was exposed for two full hours in what appeared to be a busy area of midtown Manhattan in broad daylight, wearing only a thin t-shirt and shivering violently. However, the New York Police Department aggressively monitors the streets of the city for at-risk homeless individuals. Such measures are stepped up in adverse weather conditions, and the scenario beggars belief when mitigating factors are examined: a minor child, lacking a jacket in extreme cold, left alone on the street in Manhattan's busiest district. monitors A webpage for NYC.gov explains the precautions undertaken by the city in such circumstances: The Department of Homeless Services (DHS) continues to use its Cold Weather Emergency Procedure, called Code Blue, to protect unsheltered homeless people, who are more at risk for exposure deaths during the cold winter months. During Code Blue conditions DHS doubles its outreach efforts. Community members that identify someone on the street they believe needs assistance should call 311 and ask for the Mobile Outreach Response Team; in any emergency community members should call 911. The Department of Homeless Services will send an outreach team to the location to assess the individual's condition and take appropriate action. The second shaky factor was the other content published by OrkTv prior to their "freezing, homeless child stunt": All were clearly manufactured for maximum social media interest, and their focus was neither charitable nor honest. (The words "prank" and "social experiment" appeared frequently in connection with that work.) In the same vein, the video's conclusion involved a fellow homeless person stepping up to help where no one else would. (The man was then purportedly awarded $500 for his convenient-to-the-narrative compassion.) The third factor was that the video was tied to an IndieGogo page purportedly created to raise funds to provide clothing for New York City's homeless population. That page was operated by OckTV and lacked any specific detail about how the funds raised would be managed, accounted for, or meaningfully used to assist homeless individuals in New York. And while the campaign could have been on the up-and-up, it was slated to close on 27 March 2015, well past the brunt of winter's unpleasantness in the city. No explanation was given on the page regarding whether the funds collected would be held until the next winter rolled around or repurposed to otherwise assist homeless people at the conclusion of the campaign. So while the video depicted a child on the streets of New York City in what looked to be very cold weather, little else about it was honest or straightforward. There are a number of legitimate, vetted charities in New York City dedicated to assisting vulnerable and needy people, and those moved by the video's staged events would do better to donate to one of them.  charities Last updated:  27 February 2015 Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. On 21 August 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president. guilty Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges. convicted Both the Manafort and Cohen cases came about due to investigative work undertaken as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election  and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Understandably, much of the news media in the United States gave these major developments extensive coverage that day, in print, online, and on the major television news networks. Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories, or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser import. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them. differences However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screen shot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS." War on Christmas (Festivus is an unofficial holiday which acts as an alternative to Christmas, and originated in an episode of the sitcom "Seinfeld.")  CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn  Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018   That tweet was then reposted on Facebook by the left-wing page "The Other 98%": The image is fake, and is an old meme which first appeared in December 2017. appeared Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj @BarackObama pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj  jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  Lahren herself publicly dismissed the meme: Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy. https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2  Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  The meme does indeed consist of a screenshot of a real Fox News appearance which Lahren made in August 2017, but with the original chyron digitally edited and replaced with something different and non-relevant: .@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD @TomiLahren pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD  Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017 August 31, 2017  It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal travails in August 2018 intended to engage in satire, or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was re-posted by "The Other 98%", is a comedy writer. writer As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on 21 August, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Mashable CNN - Cohen plea dealMSNBC - Cohen plea dealFox News - Are cats becoming too tall?  Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  CNN: Manafort guilty on 8 countsNYT: Manafort guilty of fraudAP: Cohen pleads guiltyFox News: Were the lobsters on the Titanic happy that it sank?  #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Another widely-shared screenshot purported to show Fox News reframing the conviction of Manafort by only mentioning, in a mobile news alert, the fact that a mistrial was declared on ten of the charges against him, while other news organizations reported his being found guilty on eight charges:   The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert which read "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial" before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges: page Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS  Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump in Hush-Money Scheme."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Barakat, Matthew et al.  "Ex-Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Guilty of 8 Charges."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Stanley-Becker, Isaac.  "In Trump's Right-Wing Media Universe, It Was a Day Like Any Other."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Sung, Morgan.  "What Was Fox News Covering While Manafort and Cohen Were in Court? This Hilarious Meme Has Some Answers."
  Mashable.  21 August 2018. Pop superstar Taylor Swift is known for being generous to her fans. But is she charitable enough to help Washington pay interest on the national debt? The#squadat the Republican Party of Florida asked (and answered) the question with a viral image on theirFacebook page on Oct. 29, 2015, the same week Swift was in the Sunshine State for concerts in Miami and Tampa. How many concerts would Taylor Swift have to perform to pay off one day of interest on our national debt? She would have to perform every day for three years, the post read. We just couldntshake it off. We wondered, would it take three years or more for the biggest pop star in the country to pay off the interest on the national debt, playing a concert every single night? We checked to see if it would be possible, even in ourwildest dreams. Because theres no telling just how much Swift is personally raking in these days (beyond, you know, a lot), theres going to be a lot of estimating here, possibly ablank spaceor two. But we do know the national debt is up over the $18 trillion mark these days, so shes got her work cut out for her. Just so we didnt cause anybad blood, we reached out to the state GOP and asked them how they were figuring Swifts tour schedule through 2019. They credited the stat to the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. We notedthe original version was slightly different: How long would it take Taylor Swift to pay off our debt? Forbes estimates that T. Swift earned around $80 million in 2015 and performed 55 concerts. She would have to perform every day for three years to pay for one day of interest that accrued on our debt. They also point out how hard other big names would have to work, like boxer Floyd Mayweather having to fight for every night for 331 years or Bill Gates having to fork over 229 lifetimes worth of personal income to pay the same bill. The foundation told us they figured out Swifts workload by calculating that she took home 28.6 percent of the gross receipts from her March 2013-June 2014 Red Tour, then stretched it out as if she played for 365 nights straight. That ends up being $526,000 per show, or $192 million for a whole year of Swift concerts (and a whole lot ofInstagrams). So how much is the daily interest on our national debt? Heritage used the 2015 estimate for interest from the Office of Management and Budget, which was$229.2 billionfor the year. One day of that is $628 million. Break that down and Swift would have to play every night for just more than 3 years to pay for one measly day of interest on an $18 trillion debt. Now, the Heritage Foundation told us they used the Red Tour because it has a full net estimate. But we here at PolitiFact Florida always like to note wheneverything has changed. Swift is a megawatt star these days, and she has been practically printing money since this years1989 World Tourbegan. The tour topped$185 millionbetween May and mid October. Thats about about 60 shows, give or take, with 20-plus to go until Swift can take a breather. ForbesandBillboarddo generally usea third of gross receiptsas a rough guideline  remember, those tours have to pay for all sorts of things besides the artist, like sets and costumes and roadies. The$80 millionForbesestimatefor June 2014-June 2015 is hard to parse, because it includes all income, which could range fromt-shirts to albums to streaming royalties. Well note its really not possible to say what she makes from any given show, because every venue is different. The tour stood to make $2.75 million from herHalloween show in Tampa, with a $928,000 bonus if the show sold out. (We cant confirm whether it did, butreports make it soundlike it came close.) In any case, we figure these days it's fair to say Tay Tay is worth closer to a very rough average of $1 million per show, especially when she's playing bigger arenas. That would really help her put a dent in the nations outstanding bills. We could also cheat with some creative bookkeeping and use data from theFederal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which puts 2015 debt interest at a slightly lower $223.3 billion. That works out to $612 million per day. Do the simple math and our estimate knocks Swifts theoretical slate of shows down to about 612 nights. Thats a little over 1 years of concerts. But theres always the chance she wouldnt want to fork over all her earnings for the interest payments. She could use a little walking around money, you know? Also, she needs a little time to go home to catsMeredith GreyandOlivia Benson. Our ruling The Republican Party of Florida asked, How many concerts would Taylor Swift have to perform to pay off one day of interest on our national debt? She would have to perform every day for three years. This viral image was inspired by the Heritage Foundation, and while their math is based on old estimates, it stands up to scrutiny. Well note that Swift likely makes a lot more money these days, so she could probably pay the bill faster. But the point that it would take an inordinate amount of time to pay just a single days interest on the $18 trillion-plus national debt stands. We rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  Mitt Romney is facing federal ethics charges. :    Mitt Romney has been charged with ethics violations by the federal government.  The United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations have requested a federal investigation of Mitt Romney's financial disclosures. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] I saw this on Face Book and I am wondering if this is true? BREAKING: Romney facing federal ethics charges. YES. This is REAL.  On Monday, Mitt Romney is expected to face charges for ethics violations and profiteering with regard to his involvement with the 2009 government bailout of the auto industry. Origins:  On 1 November 2012, five days before the U.S. presidential election, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations sent a letter to Don W. Fox, the General Counsel and Principal Deputy Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, calling for an investigation of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's financial disclosures.  The senders maintain that Mitt Romney has "undisclosed stock holdings [that] create very serious conflicts ofinterest" and that he garnered a profit of "at least $15.3 million" from the automobile industry bailout of 2009. letter In a press release about the letter, the UAW stated: press release A coalition of community, labor and good government organizations is calling on the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to investigate presidential candidate Mitt Romney for noncompliance with the Ethics in Government Act and compel him to either disclose his investments or divest them. A letter sent to Don W. Fox, general counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, states that Gov. Romney "has not even attempted to meet the requirements for a federal blind trust with respect to his substantial equity holdings. The only way for this law to be enforced in a meaningful way is for your Office to act promptly to  demand that candidate Romney disclose his stock holdings, or divest them if disclosure is not feasible." The letter was sent by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, SEIU, UAW and The Social Equity Group, and it follows up on a previous letter sent to the Office of Government Ethics on Aug. 23, 2012, that urged the office to act. "The American people have a right to know about Governor Romney's potential conflicts of interest, such as the profits his family made from the auto rescue," said UAW President Bob King. "It's time for Governor Romney to disclose or divest." The groups believe that Romneys undisclosed stock holdings create serious conflicts of interest. They point to the auto loans as a key example. The Nation recently reported that the Romney family personally profited by at least $15.3 million from the auto loans of 2009. Yet Romney's June 1, 2012, Public Financial Disclosure Report to the Office of Government Ethics did not reveal this windfall because he did not disclose the underlying holdings of his private equity and limited partnership funds.     Romney profited from his family's investment in Delphi Corp. at the expense of the Delphi workers. Other unreported investments that could create conflicts of interest include controversial holdings in Sensata and Global-Tech. The statement that Mitt Romney is "facing federal ethics charges" is at this point an exaggeration, however, as no charges have been issued against him by the federal government for violating ethics laws.  All that has happened is that some groups have sent a letter to the Office of Government Ethics requesting an investigation of Romney's financial disclosures, based on information of as-yet undetermined accuracy.  Whether sufficient basis will be found to merit an investigation, whether any such investigation will be conducted, what that investigation might find, and whether it would result in any criminal charges being brought against Mitt Romney are all matters of mere speculation. Last updated:  5 November 2012