Barack Obama Removes Flag from Air Force One?
Claim:  Barack Obama removed the U.S. flag from the tail of Air Force One and replaced it with his own logo.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] HOW DOES ANYONE GET AWAY WITH THIS? SAD. Obama Removes American Flag from His Plane He has turned Air Force One into a campaign slogan carrier... not only the Obama Campaign logo on the tail, it bears his Campaign Slogan. I do believe in most States there are laws against something so blatantly an abuse of power, using public funds for campaigning. Atop this "personalization of Air Force One", Obama has logged more miles than any previous President. We have a triple A president Audacity, Abuse, and Arrogance... He should pay for the cost of repainting/restoring the craft.... this guy has to go.  Photograph  Rob Olewisnki Rob Olewisnki    Origins:  In late 2011, the pictures displayed above were circulated with the claim that emblems depicting the U.S. flag had been removed from Air Force One and replaced with an Obama campaign logo.   This claim is completely false: both of the two Boeing 747-200B airplanes typically used by the President of the United States (and commonly referred to as Air Force One) remain with their standard markings (i.e., the words "United States of America," the American flag, and the Seal of the President of the United States) intact: Air Force One  This rumor was just a repackaging of an item that had circulated years earlier, during the 2008 presidential campaign, regarding the removal of American flag emblems from the airplane used by the Obama campaign.  As we wrote at that time: Given the length and breadth of modern presidential campaigns, it has become de rigueur for most major party candidates to have their own airplanes for ferrying themselves and staffers, press, security, and other personnel from stop to stop along the campaign trail.  Such planes may be purchased by the candidate's campaign, or they may be leased or chartered from commercial airlines.  Typically when a campaign owns its own airplane or leases a plane under a dedicated charter arrangement, the aircraft's exterior markings will be modified to identify it as a particular candidate's campaign plane, with some notable recent examples of this practice including aircraft used by presidential candidates Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000), John Kerry (2004) and John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign plane (from 2008): Bob Dole George W. Bush John Kerry    Although Senator Barack Obama flew on a variety of aircraft during the long 2008 presidential campaign season, from March through June 2008 he primarily used a Boeing 757-200ER aircraft chartered from (and operated by) North American Airlines as his campaign plane.  During that period, the plane bore the standard color scheme and company markings of a North American Airlines aircraft: North American  However, once the primary campaign effectively ended and Senator Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, his campaign plane underwent a month-long refurbishment to prepare it for the general election campaign, a process that included reconfiguring the interior seating and modifying the exterior markings to identify and publicize the aircraft as Barack Obama's official campaign plane.  The latter activity included replacing the North American Airline color scheme and markings with the Obama campaign slogan ("Change We Can Believe In"), the BARACKOBAMA.COM domain name, and Obama's sunrise/flag "O" campaign logo:  Two U.S. flag images were removed from the airplane during the refurbishment, although technically they were not ordinary representations of the American flag; rather, they were commercial markings of North American Airlines, whose logo  (a registered trademark of that company) employs a stylized rendition of the U.S. flag.  The North American flag/logo on the forward portion of the fuselage was removed and the one on the tail was replaced with the Obama "O" campaign logo, while traditional depictions of the U.S. flag adjacent to the plane's registration numbers remained: trademark Original North American versionModified Obama campaign version Last updated:  16 April 2012    Gavrilovic, Maria.  "Obama's New Plane to Meet Him Overseas."   CBSNews.com.  20 July 2008.    Kapp, Bonney.  "Obama's 757 Is Back in Service."   FOXNews.com.  20 July 2008.    Oinounou, Mosheh.  "Air 'Straight Talk' Launches."   FOXNews.com.  30 June 2008.
One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. Claim:  Bin Laden shooter Rob O'Neill was targeted in a home invasion gone awry.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] "Bin Laden Shooter Rob O'Neill Mistakenly Attacked By Street Thugs Seeking To Collect Debt From Neighbor" Seems rather far-fetched - not many Crips in Butte, MT. Origins:  On 15 December 2014, Empire News published an article titled "Bin Laden Shooter Rob O'Neill Mistakenly Attacked by Street Thugs Seeking to Collect Debt from Neighbor," claiming O'Neill, the Navy SEAL credited with firing the shots that killed Osama bin Laden, had been mistakenly targeted in a home invasion by street gang members. article According to the article, O'Neill made quick work of all five criminals: Butte Police Commissioner Bartholomew S. Harrington told members of the Associated Press in a brief press conference that the five men, part of a local street gang connected with the infamous Crips, were seeking to collect on a drug debt and invaded the wrong house, with the intended target just so happening to be the next door neighbor of O'Neill's. "Mr. O'Neill had just turned in for the night, but was awoken by a loud crash when his backdoor was abruptly kicked in. As the five thugs ran aimlessly through the home, Mr. O'Neill used silent hand-to-hand combat tactics to individually disarm them of their weapons.  Once Mr. O'Neill had taken down the five men and secured his home, he brewed a pot of coffee and called the police station. Those boys sure did find the wrong house!" commissioner Harrington said as he chuckled. The tale spread quickly across social media sites, but Empire News is one of many fake news sites responsible for the frequent hoodwinking of Facebook users. Among previous hoaxes unleashed by the site are a yarn about welfare recipients being given free cars, a claim that the state of Colorado has legalized meth, and a widely-shared story about a pending "snowmageddon." free cars legalized meth snowmageddon The site's disclaimer  page notes Empire News "is a satirical and entertainment website."  disclaimer   Last updated:  16 December 2014 Claim:   Democrats and the Clinton administration received more campaign contributions from Enron and were more accommodating of Enron's lobbying efforts than Republicans and the Bush administration. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] SCANDAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE  Texas, an energy company, big money, Bush in the White House. This has all the makings of a Republican scandal. Certainly there is a political dimension here. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it. The taxpayer-supported Export-import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.  BUT ...  the president under whom all this happened wasn't George W. Bush.It was William Jefferson Clinton. It was William Jefferson Clinton. Origins:   The debacle that was Enron was years in the making and will probably never be fully unravelled no matter how much time is devoted to investigating it.  Enron traded so much money and influence through its lobbying efforts for so many years  among both Republicans and Democrats, in federal as well as in state governments  that neither party can rightly take the moral high ground in decrying the scandal.  As The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2002: Enron's tentacles ran so deep into Washington's political establishment that 71 sitting senators and nearly half of the current House of Representatives received Enron money during the last decade, including some who are now investigating the company's bankruptcy. And The Hartford Courant noted: The company also was generous with state and local candidates from both major political parties. Its tentacles were wrapped around high-profile figures in several administrations. The attempt made in the piece of netlore quoted above to deflect blame from the Bush administration and dump it onto the Clinton White House includes some major inaccuracies, such as the claim that "the Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times" during President Bill Clinton's tenure in office.  But as Brendan Nyhan revealed in a 2002 article, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was never an overnight visitor at the White House during the Clinton adminstration  although, according to Nyhan, "Lay did, however, stay at the White House when George H.W. Bush was president." article As well, given the General Accounting Office's investigation into connections between Enron and Vice President Dick Cheney's planning of Bush administration energy policy, "the corporation's access to the administration at its highest levels" apparently continued well after Bill Clinton left the White House. According to USA Today: Dick Cheney Enron spent nearly three times as much money lobbying the Bush administration in the first half of 2001 as it initially reported.  The collapsed energy-trading company spent at least $2.46 million on efforts to influence energy and budget decisions and support its international ventures, according to an amended lobbying report Enron filed with the House and Senate on March 1. As for the supposedly shocking monetary figures bandied about ("Enron gave $420,000 to the [Democratic] president's party over three years. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities."), those numbers don't come close to matching what was reported about Enron's contributions to George W. Bush and the Republican party in The Hartford Courant: contributions Since 1989, the Houston-based energy broker and its employees have made more than $5.7 million in contributions to federal candidates and political parties, nearly three-quarters of it to Republicans. Enron was George W. Bush's biggest contributor in the 2000 presidential campaign. Nor do they match what The New York Times uncovered: Enron, Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins, a Houston law firm, are among the most generous contributors to Mr. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Enron has given more than $700,000 to Mr. Bush since 1993; no company has given him more. In addition, Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, was one of the "pioneers," raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's e-mail campaign, and he and his wife gave a total of $10,000 to Mr. Bush's Florida recount fund. Enron and Mr. Lay also contributed a total of $200,000 to Mr. Bush's inaugural festivities. Last updated:  30 March 2006    Sources:   Keen, Judy.  "Enron Tale Drags Bush Aides Along."   USA Today.  8 February 2002  (p. A4).     Lochhead, Carolyn.  "Firm Gave Campaign Funds to Half of Congress."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  16 January 2002  (p. A12).     McCoy, Kevin.  "Enron Spent $2.5M, Not $825,000, on Lobbying Efforts."   USA Today.  8 March 2002  (p. B1).     Nyhan, Brendan.  "Another Bedroom Farce."   Salon.com.  21 February 2002.     Reaves, Jessica.  "Enron: What Should Cheney Do?"   Time.  30 January 2002.     van Natta, Don.  "Enron Spread Contributions on Both Sides of the Aisle."   The New York Times.  21 January 2002  (p. A13).     The Hartford Courant.  "Enron's Pervasive Influence."   24 January 2002  (p. A10). When the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its latest job numbers, the Jan. 8, 2021, release brought a jaw-dropping number to light  from November to December the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs. Then came another jaw-dropper: As a group, only women lost jobs. Then came this claim, from Wisconsin Treasurer Sarah Godlewski. On Jan. 9, 2021, she tweeted a link to a CNN article about the job losses among women with this comment: This headline is hiding something from you. It wasnt all women that lost jobs, it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. Any response we have to this pandemic and economy has to also address structural inequality. Did Black and Latina women carry the brunt of job loss nationally, while white women gained employment? When asked for a source, Godlewskis office pointed tothe CNN article, dated Jan. 8, that she retweeted. That article noted the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs overall, with women losing 156,000 jobs, while men gained 16,000 jobs. Her office also pointed to this paragraph in the article: Black and Latina women disproportionately work in some of the hardest-hit sectors in the pandemic, often in roles thatlack paid sick leaveand the ability to work from home. As schools and day cares closed, many were forced to make hard trade-offs between work and parenting. Those sectors are less likely to have flexibility, so when employers are inflexible or women can't come to work because of caregiving responsibilities  they have to exit the workforce, said Nicole C. Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Womens Policy Research. We did our own check of the BLS numbers, and the preliminary November and December numbers reflect what was in the CNN article. But Godlewskis claim was specifically on the difference in outcomes for Black and Latina women, as groups, when compared to white women. The BLS conducted a separate survey known as the Current Population Survey, which  measures employment for Black, Hispanic or Latina, and white women ages 20 and older. This data was part of the Jan. 8 release of the December jobs numbers. Participating households respond to the survey in the week of Dec. 6. That data, which is not seasonally adjusted, indicates the number of employed Black women decreased by 82,000 from November to December, and the number of Hispanic or Latina women employed decreased by 31,000. Meanwhile, the number of employed white women increased by 106,000 in the same time span. The overall number of women in the labor force has been fluctuating since the March-to-April numbers, which marked the first full hit of the pandemic. There was a decrease from July to September. Laura Dresser, an economist with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said prior economic declines were led by male-dominated fields, such as construction and manufacturing. The pandemic-driven decline, she said, has strongly affected areas  such as the restaurant and education industries  with a high number of women workers. And those jobs are low-wage jobs, Dresser said. They're held disproportionately by women. They're held disproportionately by people of color. With a link to a news article, Godlewski claimed: It wasnt all women that lost jobs, it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. Federal statistics show that, as a group, women accounted for all of the job loss from November to December. Whats more, the number of employed white women increased during that time frame, while the numbers for Black and Hispanic or Latina women fell. We rate this claim True. A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by "extreme hackers" out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you "to see what you would look like as the opposite sex" and also one that lets you see what you look like "as a bald person". DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, "What would you look like as a bald person?":   Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results:   This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Terms of Service Privacy Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: provides Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. other info In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically "hackers" (much less "extreme hackers," which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the "black market." However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. On 5 March 2019, a conspiracy-minded Twitter account shared a video purporting to be from the site of a construction project funded by West Virginia taxpayer money for the purpose of housing 321 Syrian refugees. The video also claimed this was being done at the expense of regular Americans who, the man claims, were being pushed into substandard housing. He asserted that the area he was standing in will be a sharia zone, and no non-Muslims will be allowed to enter: a video  Several factual problems exist with assertions in this video. Chief among them is the fact that this video shows the Littlepage Terrace housing project, a low-income, housing tax-credit property allocated through the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, which houses zero Syrian refugees and many regular Americans. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, someone who works next to the project refers to it as Littlepage: Littlepage Terrace   Second, a wider, composite view of the mans video shows clearly identifiable markers of the Littlepage housing complex, including a tell-tale smokestack and buildings that exactly match the structures built at Littlepage:   For comparison, heres video shot at Littlepage:  Third, Mark Taylor, the chief executive officer of Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority, which works with the Littlepage Terrace project, confirmed to us by email that the suspect video was taken at that site during renovations that likely occurred in May 2017. He also confirmed to us that the community houses no Syrian refugees. Another significant oversight in the tweeted narrative is that the entire state of West Virginia has taken in far less than 321 Syrian refugees in total. In 2016, the year the United States took in the largest number of Syrian refugees, West Virginia resettled only five of them in their state. On 1 February 2017, the Trump Administration announced Executive Order 13769, commonly referred to as the travel ban," which indefinitely suspended the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. In 2017, West Virginia took in 13 refugees, but these individuals were not necessarily Syrian. largest number only five travel ban 13 refugees It is true that Littlepage was torn down and rebuilt, but that decision had nothing to do with refugee housing. Instead, the renovations aimed to reduce crime and revitalize the area, as reported by West Virginias WCHS television station in 2016: reported The Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority is now on the last phase of revitalizing three housing projects. Similar to Orchard Manor and Washington Manor, Littlepage Terrace will be demolished and rebuilt as two-story town homes.  This housing project was built nearly 80 years ago with no air conditioning and poor visibility. Now it is simply not a secure living space.  The goal for these new developments is to reduce crime and revitalize the area. Because the housing complex displayed was not built for Syrian refugees, and because the state has taken virtually no Syrian refugees at all, we rank the claims made in this video as aggressively and demonstrably false. Charleston-Kanawha Housing.  Developments - Littlepage Terrace."
  Accessed 14 March 2019. Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova.  Syrian Refugees in the United States
  Migration Policy Institute.  17 January 2017. Beck, Erin.  Few Syrian Refugees Resettle in WV, At Least for Now.
  Charleston Gazette-Mail.  2 September 2016. Whitehouse.gov.  Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
  27 January 2017. U.S. Department of State.  Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2019."
  24 September 2018. Gunderson, Kaela.  Residents, Housing Officials Hope Littlepage Terrace Project Will Boost Safety.
  WCHS/WCAH ABC 8.  3 August 2016. Asked by a Dallas television reporter whether he agreed with Texas leaders that the federal government should take some governing cues from the Lone Star State, President Barack Obama said he saw a little inconsistency in that position. Keep in mind, Gov. (Rick) Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help, which he happily took, and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help, Obama said during an April 18 interview with WFAA reporter Brad Watson at the White House. That so? We started our fact-check with Obamas budget claim. Adam Abrams, a White House spokesman, told us that Obama was referring to stimulus funds when he said Perry plugged the budget with federal aid. The roughly $800 billion federal stimulus package, named the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by Congress, became law in February 2009 after receiving only three Republican votes, all in the Senate. State governments were the primary recipients of the money, although funds have also gone directly to entities such as schools, hospitals and utilities. The law specified that governors had 45 days after its passage to certify that their state would request and use the offered funds. On Feb. 18, 2009, Perry sent Obama the requisite letter of certification, assuring the president that the state would accept the funds and use them in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. According to a February 2009 PBSNews Houronline post, some stimulus money was meant to help states avoid slashing funding for education and other programs that lawmakers could trim to offset shortfalls. Abrams, asked for backup for the presidents statement, pointed us to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which in turn sent us its July 2009 report on state budgets. According to the report, state budget-writing Texas lawmakers in 2009 were short $6.6 billion in revenue for 2010-11 and relied heavily on stimulus funds for a solution. We did our own budget research, finding that lawmakers agreed to spend $80.6 billion in state general revenue on basic expenses over the two-year period, according to a report by the Legislative Budget Board, which advises lawmakers on budgetary matters. However, the stimulus aid let legislators put an additional $6.4 billion toward programs, primarily Medicaid and education, historically financed with general revenue, according to a July 2009 House Research Organization report. Another $5.7 billion in stimulus money went to programs such as highway and bridge construction, child care development programs and weatherization assistance. Counting all funding sources, including the $12.1 billion in stimulus aid, the 2010-11 state budget totaled $182 billion. So, Obamas dollar figure holds up. What about his claim that after accepting the stimulus money, Perry started blaming members of Congress who voted for the bill  almost all of them Democrats? We searched news archives and websites for such jabs.For the record, Perry has long aired anti-Washington, anti-spending rhetoric. A December 2007Austin American-Statesmanstory reported that Perry, while campaigning in Iowa for presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, said President George W. Bush is not and he never was a fiscal conservative. Back to the stimulus: On Feb. 18, 2009, the same day Perry accepted the federal funds, the governor slammed the legislation as being full of pork and special interest handouts. On his campaignwebsite, Perry wrote: The Democrats think this bill will change our country's financial fortunes, but you and I know better. This administration is saddling future generations with an increasingly unbearable debt. He then urged readers to sign an online petition telling Washington that they are fed up with bailouts. In his letter to Obama accepting the aid, Perry said: As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe (the stimulus plan) will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt. Perry also wrote that he opposed using these funds to expand existing government programs because the state would be burdened with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up. (Elsewhere, Perry was quoted as saying that he welcomed federal dollars that could be used for one-time expenses.) During a Feb. 26, 2009, interview with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher, Perry criticized those members of Congress who had supported both the stimulus plan and the earlier $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which helped shore up struggling banks during the financial crisis. He said: Voting for the TARP in my opinion is even worse than voting for the stimulus; and theyre both very bad. ... At least some of the stimulus money may actually get into the hands of people where it might accidentally do some good. Theres more. In an April 7, 2009, video posted on his campaignwebsite, Perry urged fellow patriots to attend tea party rallies planned for April 15 to let Washington know what you think about the bailouts, all this stimulus, all this runaway spending thats going on. And during speeches at tea party rallies that day, Perry said the attendees were sending Washington a message that we will not stand for our pockets being picked, our childrens future being mortgaged, our rights being taken away. Perrys criticism of Washingtons policies was not limited to Democrats. Running against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last Republican gubernatorial primary, Perry frequently attacked her by calling out Washington. According to a Sept. 25, 2009,Statesmanarticle, Perry wrote in a fundraising letter, If Washington Republicans hadn't spent like Democrats for 12 years, they might have maintained enough votes to actually kill Obamacare. More recently, during a January 2010 speech in favor of a proposal to require Congress to balance the federal budget, Perry said that leaders in Washington  pour out your tax dollars on every challenge, blissfully ignoring the consequences of their largesse while they consign our children, our grandchildren to a life of unprecedented, unmanageable debt. We asked the White House for examples of Perry blaming the members of Congress who supported the stimulus plan. Abrams didnt offer any but told us that the president was pointing out the well-documented habit of those who criticize Recovery Act assistance while using those funds to balance a state's budget. Summing up: Obama said Perry happily took federal stimulus funds that helped balance the states 2010-11 state budget. Perry hardly sounded happy about it, but Obama is correct that he accepted stimulus money that was used to help balance the budget. As to whether Perry then started blaming members of Congress who had supported the stimulus legislation  well, not in so many words. And as we noted, Perrys criticism of the federal government had started long before. But Perry criticized the plan specifically and the policies of Washington in general, using rhetoric that painted Congress and the White House with the same big-spending brush. We rate the statement Mostly True. On June 21, 2021, the day before New York City's mayoral primary election, a New York Times reporter claimed one of the Democratic candidates  Andrew Yang  said on a conservative talk radio show that people with mental illnesses need to be hospitalized in order for the city's economy to improve.  According to a tweet by the Times journalist, Emma Fitzsimmons, billionaire John Catsimatidis and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had just spoken with Yang on 77 WABC's "Election Coverage" show. tweet Emma Fitzsimmons John Catsimatidis Rudy Giuliani Fitzsimmons said in the post, which hundreds of users retweeted for their own followers, at 4:18 (EST):   The attribution was correct. According to 77 WABC's video recording of the June 21 broadcast segment, which featured candidates of several New York races fielding questions from Catsimatidis and Giuliani, Yang phoned into the show and had the below-transcribed exchange: video recording Yang: We're poised to win this race, and then I'm going to get to work on delivering for New Yorkers the public safety we expect and deserve, which includes getting the homeless men who are struggling mentally into environments where they're safer and healthier. It's better for everyone. [...] Catsimatidis: One of the most important things with law and order in New York City, is we have all of these homeless people in the streets and lot of them are mentally ill. [...] What happened? Don't those people deserve treatment? Aren't we better of spending money to build hospitals to treat those poor people? Yang: 100 percent. We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment. It's going to be worth every penny. In other words,Yang did not explicitly say hospitalizing people with severe mental health issues was "the only way" (verbatim) to restart the city's economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he did say "we're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back" without supposedly taking the step, implying the same thing. Hours after the radio interview, Yang told The New York Times that he stood by his comments on the radio show, again framing the issue as one of public safety. told The New York Times We all know that public safety is top of mind for New Yorkers, he told the newspaper. There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways. It was not the first instance of Yang, a former presidential candidate, saying people with severe mental issues perpetuate some of the city's economic and social problems. During a debate on June 16 with other Democratic candidates (there are 13 total), Yang said city officials need to get people with untreated mental health issues "off of our streets and our subways into a better environment," and that "mentally ill homeless men are changing the character of our neighborhoods," presumably for the worse. June 16 Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do: the people and families of the city, Yang said at the debate. We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us. Those comments sparked criticism among social media users who pointed out research that shows people with severe mental illness are far more likely to be victims of crime  not perpetrators  and the fact that mental health includes a wide spectrum of disorders that affect everyone. research The day after the debate, Yang responded to that outcry with the below-displayed tweet. responded   Full context here was mental illness is behind half of anti-Asian hate crimes, he said. We need to get them compassionate comprehensive care  and not let them languish on our streets. On Nov. 24, 2022, a Facebook user posted a picture of a blue owl. However, blue owls are not real, meaning that the image was a fake. posted  The post from Nov. 24 was shared at least 2,000 times in a little over one week. It was the earliest posting of the picture that we have found so far. On Twitter, the fake blue owl picture, which showed cat-like whiskers for the animal, received hundreds of thousands of likes. For example, this tweet from@jimrosecircus1 was posted on Dec. 1, 2022. It showed nearly 150,000 likes by the next day. The caption read, "I hope you don't mind this adorably majestic blue owl in your newsfeed." tweet  Under the tweet, Twitter added a context note that read, "There is no such thing as blue owl. It looks really good but unfortunately it's not true." On Dec. 2, the @daily__owls Twitter account also posted the fake picture of the blue owl with the misleading caption, "The beautiful Norwegian Blue owl." posted  According to Brittanica.com, "owls vary in color from white through many shades of tan, gray, brown, or rufous (reddish) to deep brown." Despite the beauty of the blue and orange owl in the picture, it's just not real. Brittanica.com Hoax hunter @HoaxEye tweeted of the blue owl image that it may have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The tweet also tagged the user @Valdevia_Art, who added that they believed it was likely not as simple as a color change in Adobe Photoshop. Instead, the user said that it "does seem AI-generated." tweeted added said This wasn't the first time a picture of a purportedly blue owl made its way around social media. In 2021, USA Today's fact-check team debunkeda picture of what online posts referred to as a "blue Philippines owl." VisitCryptoVille.com previously published a story about the same picture five years earlier. debunked picture story Back in 2019, AFP filed a report about a "beautiful blue owl of Madagascar," which also was fake. report At Snopes, we've previously fact-checked photos purporting to show a multicolored "rainbow owl" (fake) and a "rare red owl with blue eyes" (also fake). rainbow owl rare red owl with blue eyes This story will be updated if we find more details about the origins of the blue owl picture. As noted by some knowledgeable Twitter users, it may have simply been generated by AI. @Daily__Owls. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/Daily__Owls/status/1598613376992792576. @HoaxEye. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1598734104396079104. @jimrosecircus1. Twitter, 1 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/jimrosecircus1/status/1598366192817045504. "Owl - Appearance and Classification." Britannica.Com, https://www.britannica.com/animal/owl/Form-and-function. Sadeghi, McKenzie. "Fact Check: Viral Image Claiming to Be a Blue Philippine Owl Is Doctored." USA TODAY, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/22/fact-check-viral-image-purported-blue-philippine-owl-doctored/4533533001/. Salah, Dr. Muhammad. "Just Admire the Beauty of Allah's Creation!" Facebook, 24 Nov. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/MSalahOfficial/posts/pfbid0TazmyskVgTA2axagkDCMNrAUqheW4LRPz91UvMUaK3v6xywK5JgrQHjLy6YysK61l. "The Blue Owl of the Philippines 19-31." VisitCryptoVille.com, 19 Jan. 2016, https://visitcryptoville.com/2016/01/19/the-blue-owl-of-the-philippines-19-31/. @Valdevia_Art. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/valdevia_art/status/1598752209935560706. Yan, Rachel. "No, This Is Not a Genuine Photo of a Blue Owl in Madagascar." AFPFact Check, 4 June 2019, https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-genuine-photo-blue-owl-madagascar. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016.