Says people who signed recall petitions against Wisconsin state Sen. Jim Holperin received harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.
Kim Simac, a Wisconsintea partyleader, took aim at state Sen.JimHolperinafter the Conover Democrat fled to Illinois in February 2011.Like 13 other Democratic senators, Holperin, who represents a North Woods district where Simac lives, spent three weeks in Illinois. The move delayed a vote on Republican Gov. Scott Walkers budget-repair bill, which curtails the collective bargaining power of most state and local government employees, although the bill eventually became law.Court challenges have kept the collective bargaining changes from taking effect. But the law, and the Democrats reaction to it, spurred a recall movement ofhistoric proportions. Campaigns were launched against all 16 state senators -- eight Democrats and eight Republicans  -- who were eligible to be recalled.Simac, vice-chairwoman of theVilas County RepublicanPartyand founder of Christian values group calledNorthwoods Patriots,headedthe signature-collectingcampaignto recall Holperin,a first-termsenatorwho previously served 10 years in the state Assembly.On April 21, 2011, Simac submitted some 23,000 signatures to the Government Accountability Board, which has not completed its review. She has announcedplans to run againstHolperinif a recall election is set.Eight days after the petitions were filed, Simac issued anewsreleasethat claimed petition signers, are being subjected to harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.Lets see if thats what happened.When we asked Simac for evidence to back her claim, she asked people who received the calls to contact PolitiFact Wisconsin directly.We received calls from 17 people and e-mails from more than 30 others. We interviewed 10 of the people who called. Heres what we found: Those statements back the claim made by Simac.What did Holperin and the Democrats have to say about it?Holperin said he authorized the Wisconsin Democratic Party to call about 5,000 of the people who signed recall petitions against him.Graeme Zielinski, spokesman for the party, said the Minnesota telemarketing firm was hired to call people who signed petitions against Holperin and against two other Democrats who are facing possible recall elections.Holperin said he authorized the calls because, although petition circulators who worked under Simac were earnest, honest and friendly, more than a third of the 23,000 signatures were collected byKennedy Enterprises, a Colorado marketing and consulting firm hired by the Wisconsin Republican Party. Those petition circulators were often aggressive and misleading when they asked residents to sign petitions, Holperin said.According to Holperin, 534 petition signers -- about 10 percent of those who were called by the Minnesota telemarketing firm -- said they were given misleading information and that they asked to have their names removed from the petitions. He said that was the basis for acomplainthe filed with the Government Accountability Board challenging the petitions.Holperin provided ascriptthat he said the firm used in asking questions of people who signed recall petitions against him. The script shows that, among other things, callers were to: identify themselves as representing the Wisconsin Democratic Party; ask people whether they were aware their signatures appeared on a Holperin recall petition; and state that reports had been received that out-of-state paid circulators were misleading people about what they were being asked to sign.So, did we insinuate that foul play had occurred?, Holperin said. You bet we did, and we think we offered ample evidence that backs up our claim.Lets wrap up.Simac said people who signed Holperin recall petitions received harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.Some people who received calls said they felt harassed even if they received just one call because they didnt expect to be questioned about signing a petition. The callers were employed by an out-of-state firm, they did identify themselves as representing the Wisconsin Democratic Party and did claim that petition circulators misled signers of the petitions.We rate Simacs claim as True.
Around 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 10, 2021, a tornado tore through Madison County, Illinois, before striking an Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville where night workers were beginning their shift. The powerful tornado ripped off the building's roof, caused two of its 40-foot-high concrete walls to collapse, leaving six people dead in its wake.  As news of this tragic incident circulated on social media, so did an image supposedly showing a text message thread between Larry Virden, one of the worker's who died, and his girlfriend, Cherie Jones. In one message, Virden writes, "Amazon won't let us leave."   This appears to be a genuine image of a text message thread. While many people encountered this as a standalone image on social media, this image was first published in a local news broadcast from Fox 2 News after Jones provided it to the station. You can see the original news report below:  Jones spoke more about this text message in an interview with the New York Post: New York Post I got text messages from him. He always tells me when he is filling up the Amazon truck when he is getting ready to go back  I was like OK, I love you. Hes like, well Amazon wont let me leave until after the storm blows over.' [...] We heard the tornado didnt touch down until 8:39 so he had 20 minutes to get home ... I messaged him and that was the last text message I got from him ... I told him where we live, it was only lightning at the time. After that, I got nothing from him. Jones, however, didn't fault Amazon for his death. Instead, she said she viewed it as a "what if" situation, saying: "what if they would have let him leave? He could have made it home." It should also be noted that this text message was sent in the brief timespan (about 20 minutes) between the first tornado warning and the tornado striking the warehouse. As New York Times reporter Karen Weise noted, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance is for people to "seek shelter" after these warnings.  A spokesperson for Amazon told us that Amazon's leaders on the ground followed this OSHA guidance and worked to get people to take shelter after these warnings were issued.  The spokesperson said:  OSHA guidance clearly states to take shelter immediately when theres a tornado warning. Our leaders on the ground followed their training and did just that, moving quickly to get people to take shelter immediately. That likely saved many lives from this storm. The site got tornado warnings between 8:06 and 8:16, and site leaders directed people on site to immediately take shelter. At 8:27, the tornado struck the building. Our team worked quickly to ensure employees and partners could get to the designated shelter in place area, and we want to thank them for everything they were able to do. In the wake of the deadly tornado, Amazon faced some criticism for not having an adequate safety plan in place. The BBC reported: reported Now, questions are being raised over whether adequate shelter was available, whether workers were advised to go there immediately, and whether the shifts should have gone ahead that evening at all, given the warnings of severe weather. The Edwardsville site received tornado warnings between 20:06 and 20:16 local time (01:06 and 01:16 GMT) before the tornado struck the building at 20:27, Amazon said in a statement when contacted by the BBC, with events "happening incredibly fast". The company said that the team worked "incredibly quickly" to ensure as many employees and partners could reach the "shelter in place" site. OHSA has opened an investigation into the collapse. OSHA spokesman Scott Allen told ABC News that the investigation will be complete within six months. ABC News OSHA investigates all workplace fatalities, and we are supporting them, an Amazon spokesperson said. Amazon, which is donating $1 million to the Edwardsville Community Foundation to help the community rebuild after the tornado, also said in a statement: statement "Were deeply saddened by the news that members of our Amazon family passed away as a result of the storm in Edwardsville, IL. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their loved ones, and everyone impacted by the tornado. We also want to thank all the first responders for their ongoing efforts on scene. Were continuing to provide support to our employees and partners in the area.   2 Workers Killed after Collapse at Amazon Warehouse in Edwardsville. FOX 2, 11 Dec. 2021, https://fox2now.com/news/illinois/multiple-workers-trapped-after-collapse-at-amazon-warehouse-in-edwardsville/. Amazon Criticised over Safety at Tornado-Hit Warehouse. BBC News, 13 Dec. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59641784. Amazon Worker Who Died in Warehouse Collapse Wasnt Allowed to Leave, Girlfriend Says. New York Post, 13 Dec. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/12/12/amazon-worker-texted-girlfriend-he-wasnt-allowed-to-leave-warehouse/. OSHA Investigating after 6 Killed by Tornado at Amazon Facility. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/dead-amazon-facility-tornado-pummels-illinois/story?id=81721932. Accessed 14 Dec. 2021. OSHA Opens Investigation after Amazon Warehouse Collapses during Tornado, Killing 6. PBS NewsHour, 13 Dec. 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/osha-opens-investigation-after-amazon-warehouse-collapses-during-tornado-killing-6. Weise, Karen, and Eric Berger. At Amazon Site, Tornado Collided With Companys Peak Delivery Season. The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/technology/amazon-tornado-edwardsville.html. Updated [Dec. 12, 2021]: Added a statement from Amazon about OSHA guidelines. Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. ' In November 2019, we received a few emails from readers alerting us that they had received an email from someone purporting to be from Netflix that asked them to update their payment information: I believe there is a scam going around in regards to Netflix. My husband received a notice that something is wrong with our account and the link given doesnt go to an actual Netflix website. They ask for all the profile information including a credit number and info. I checked the actual website and our account is in good standing and all the info is accurate.    This is not a genuine email from Netflix. This email is an attempt to steal credit card information and is known as a phishing scam.  Phishing scams use various forms of bait (hence the name) in an attempt to trick people into giving up personal information, such as passwords or credit card information. These scammers may promise a prize, such as a cash giveaway, in order to entice people to give up their information. Or, as in this case, pose as a trusted company. This Netflix phishing scam has been circulating since at least 2017. In December 2018, so many people had reported they were targeted with a version of this scam that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a statement called "Netflix phishing scam: Dont take the bait": statement Phishing is when someone uses fake emails or texts to get you to share valuable personal information  like account numbers, Social Security numbers, or your login IDs and passwords. Scammers use your information to steal your money, your identity, or both. They also use phishing emails to get access to your computer or network. If you click on a link, they can install ransomware or other programs that can lock you out of your data. Scammers often use familiar company names or pretend to be someone you know. Heres a real world example featuring Netflix. Police in Ohio shared a screenshot of a phishing email designed to steal personal information. The email claims the users account is on hold because Netflix is having some trouble with your current billing information and invites the user to click on a link to update their payment method. Readers can find additional tips on how to spot and respond to this scam here. The FTC has also published a few tips on how to spot similar scams, which we've reproduced below: here How to Recognize PhishingScammers often update their tactics, but there are some signs that will help you recognize a phishing email or text message. Phishing emails and text messages may look like theyre from a company you know or trust. They may look like theyre from a bank, a credit card company, a social networking site, an online payment website or app, or an online store. Phishing emails and text messages often tell a story to trick you into clicking on a link or opening an attachment. They may Netflix has also addressed the phishing scams that have targeted the company's users. The help section of the Netflix website (located at help.Netflix.com) informs readers they can always check the standing of their accounts on the official Netflix website, and that they should never give payment information to third-party outlets: help.Netflix.com Netflix website,  If you suspect you have received a fraudulent email or text message that appears to be from Netflix, follow these tips to keep your information safe and secure, and follow the steps below to report the message: How do I report a suspicious or phishing email or text message (SMS)? If you received a suspicious or phishing email, forward it to phishing@netflix.com and delete the email. Please include the message header information, which can be found using this Google article. phishing@netflix.com Google article If you received a suspicious text message (SMS), forward it to phishing@netflix.com using the steps for your device below. phishing@netflix.com Engadget.  "How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams."
  Retrieved 14 November 2019. Lawler, Richard.  "FTC Issues Warning About a Netflix Phishing Scam."
  Engadget.  26 December 2018. Tressler, Colleen.  "Netflix Phishing Scam: Dont Take the Bait."
  FTC.  26 December 2018. Editor's Note: On Dec. 22, 2021, Charles Lieber was convicted of making false statements to federal authorities about his involvement with the Chinese government and for failing to report foreign financial accounts to the IRS. You can read more about Lieber's case here. The original story continues below.  read more about Lieber's case here On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. arrested Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon.  wild speculation unfounded connections         A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: post In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological Research laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese Students working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of "Sensitive Biological Samples" according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? Its located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the Coronaviruswhich is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent.  Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a "strategic scientist" at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: DOJ Chinas Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of Chinas scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Liebers three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT "not less than nine months a year" by "declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of" WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he wasnt sure how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and Chinas Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber had no formal association with WUT after 2012, that WUT continued to falsely exaggerate his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber is not and has never been a participant in Chinas Thousand Talents Plan. In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related.  On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China.  announced Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Bostons Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the Peoples Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a "student" on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.  In short: Cancer cells.  As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of "biological research" were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: The New York Times Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid  cancer cells  that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleagues research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion.  While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. debunked Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution. stated Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: The Washington Post Theres absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered, said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded. Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is highly unlikely the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. We dont have any evidence for that, said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. Its a skip in logic to say its a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed, Narang said In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence.  Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with "economic espionage" and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: statement Chinas goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the worlds leading superpower, and theyre breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call non-traditional collectors such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the Peoples Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. Cookson, Clive.  "Coronavirus Was Not Genetically Engineered in a Wuhan lab, Says Expert."
  Financial Times.  13 February 2020. Stevenson, Alexandra.  "Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins."
  The New York Times.  17 February 2020. U.S. Department of Justice.  "Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases."
  28 January 2020. Shaw, Jonathan.  "Stolen Research: Chinese Scientist Is Accused of Smuggling Lab Samples."
  Harvard Magazine.  28 January 2020. Barry, Ellen.  "Stolen Research: Chinese Scientist Is Accused of Smuggling Lab Samples."
  The New York Times.  31 December 2020. Barry, Ellen.  "U.S. Accuses Harvard Scientist of Concealing Chinese Funding."
  The New York Times.  28 January 2020. Updated [22 December 2021]: Editor's note added after Lieber was convicted of making false statements to federal authorities about his involvement with the Chinese government and for failing to report foreign financial accounts to the IRS. Democratic Congressman Jim Moran didnt want tax cuts then, and he doesnt want them now.Explaining his vote against any extension of the Bush-era cuts, Moran paints the acts in 2001 and 2003 as abject failures.When the Bush plan was first proposed in 2001, the great cost of those tax cuts was sold to the public as a means of generating economic growth. That has proven to be false. The decade that followed the 2001 tax cuts featured the slowest average annual growth since World War II, he said in a Dec. 2 press release.Moran continues: Nor did lower taxes increase employment. Work-force participation fell in 2001 and has never returned to the record level set in 2000  before the tax cuts took effect.We were intrigued by the Congressmans correlation between employment and the tax cuts. So we looked into the numbers.Asked for a source, Morans chief of staff, Austin Durrer, sent us aNew York Times business blog postby David Leonhardt, which does reinforce the congressmans statement. Getting to the bottom of Moran's claim required us to examine two contentions in the congressman's statement: 1) That overall U.S. employment was not increased by the Bush tax cuts; 2) That work-force participation actually fell. These two contentions may sound similar, but in the specialized world of economists they are defined differently and involve separate sets of statistics.EmploymentNor did lower taxes increase employment, Moran said.There were 132 million Americans employed when the first round of Bush tax cuts passed in June, 2001, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. There were 130.5 employed at the end of last month. Thats a decrease of 1.5 million workers. So technically, Moran is correct. But he omits an important consideration: After the more-sweeping second round of tax cuts took effect in June 2003, there was a significant increase of jobs that lasted until recessions onset at the end of 2007.There were 129.8 million Americans employed in June, 2003 and almost 138 million with jobs in December, 2007. Thats an increase of 8.2 million workers.The recession at the end of the decade is the great equalizer that makes Morans statement factually accurate. But you cant dismiss that the number of workers steadily increased for better than four years after the second Bush tax cut.So wed rate Morans statement that lower taxes did not increase employment Half True.Work-force participationWork-force participation fell in 2001 and has never returned to the record level set in 2000 -- before the tax cuts took effect, Moran said.Work-force participation is the percentage of the population 16 and older that is employed. Most economists regard it as a more meaningful measure of employment than the total number of Americans working. Heres why:The total employment figure does not take into account that the United States population is growing and additional workers enter the job market every day. The U.S. has to create about 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep its employment and unemployment rates steady.The measure of work-force participation includes population growth.Moran is correct in saying work-force participation peaked in 2000. The high-water mark came in April that year when 64.7 percent of the U.S. population -- 16 and older -- had jobs.In June, 2001, when the first Bush  tax cuts were approved, participation was at 63.7 percent. Last month, it was 58.2 percent -- the lowest measure since mid-1983.The participation percentages varied slightly from passage of the second Bush tax cuts to the start of the recession. In June, 2003, participation was 62.3 percent; it was 62.7 percent in December, 2007.Economists caution against measuring the success or failure of tax cuts by employment figures.The point of the tax rate cuts was to increase incentives for working, saving, and investing -- and therefore productivity and growth, said Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Labor Force Participation is just one variable. There is also job totals, work hours, investment, productivity, etc. Those variables all responded well.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow specializing in labor market policy with the left-leaning Brookings Institution, says Morans point is valid. But he, too, says labor force growth is a small component in measuring the effectiveness of tax cuts.Tax changes can affect participation rates, though their impact has often been greatly exaggerated, especially by folks self-identifying as supply siders, he said.So its fair to argue that the merits of tax cuts should not be reduced to employment figures. But Moran is accurate when he says work-force participation fell after 2000 and the tax cuts did not restore them to previous highs. We rate this part of his statement True.SummaryMoran says the Bush tax cuts failed to boost jobs. He cites two measurements.As he notes, total employment didnt go up over the decade. But he neglects to mention numbers were on the rise before the advent of the worst economic downturn in 80 years. Hes half right here.Hes correct in saying work-force participation fell since a record in 2000.When you put both parts of his statement together, we rate it Mostly True. As a comedian who claims he sees the faults in both major U.S. political parties, Jimmy Dore said this to fans amid clashes between Portland, Oregon, protesters and federal agents operating under a plan by U.S. President Donald Trump in July 2020: the country's top Democrats are misleading you. Jimmy Dore In a video posted on July 22, 2020, Dore claimed U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were quick to use Twitter to push back against what started as a Trump-led initiative to deploy federal militarized officers in cities where people were protesting for the removal of racist monuments and against police brutality following George Floyd's in-custody death in May 2020. video initiative federal militarized officers George Floyd's Meanwhile, Dore claimed the same Democrats were working on legislation that would fund the exact law-enforcement effort to which they were outwardly opposed  the Trump-sponsored plan that resulted in chaotic street clashes between the officers and Americans who said they were rightfully exercising their First Amendment rights, and raised questions over the constitutional authority of federal law enforcement agencies.   Referring to groups of armed federal officers who wore camouflage body armor and were patrolling downtown Portland at the time of this analysis, Dore said: camouflage body armor You know whos not even trying to stop them? Nancy Pelosi. You know whos actually empowering that very thing to happen? You know whos giving Trump the soldiers, the goons, and the money to send those people in there without stopping them? ... Nancy Pelosi is giving Trumps Homeland Security, who those goons are, all the money they want with no strings attached. She could say, 'Well fund you, but inside this funding bill you cannot send federal troops into local municipalities, unless youre invited.' Shes not doing that  the Democrats arent doing that. ... There's Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful people in government, not doing anything but pretending to be outraged. The claim at its core was multifaceted: that Pelosi made clear in public statements that she opposed the Trump administration's use of federal agents in American cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Portland in the aftermath of Floyd's death, and that she was concurrently working on a policy proposal that would cover the cost of similar militarized efforts in the future. Floyd Below examines the truth of those assertions based on federal legislative records; Pelosi's office did not respond to Snopes' request for comment on the accusations. In an email to Snopes, a representative for Dore said he wanted to expose his viewers to the idea that House Democrats were "refusing to use their majority status to counter Trump," and that he based his argument on an article by a former speech writer for 2020 presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders named David Sirota. That report alleged: article Indeed, at times it almost seems as if Democrats are engaging in deliberate performance art to try to dare us to care about this bait and switch  as if they really cannot believe we are all this ignorant or asleep to not even notice the swindle. First, let's provide some context. Trump signed an executive order on June 26, 2020, giving several federal agencies the authority to join the Federal Protective Service  which is a section of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that aims to protect government properties  on patrols during demonstrations. executive order Federal Protective Service Homeland Security   Neither that order, nor other federal records, said how many agents would be participating in the effort, or what department they worked for. However, DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Kenneth Cuccinelli told reporters tactical units from the DHS' Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) were part of the president's directive. Other reports said officers from a group known as BORTAC  the CBP equivalent of a SWAT team that normally investigates drug-smuggling crimes  was also deployed. told reporters reports That said, the DHS was among the leading agencies in the federal government's response to the protests, making an investigation into that department's funding proposals the most appropriate avenue to determine the legitimacy of the claim. We reached out to DHS, asking for its response to critics like Dore who believed the DHS should not receive federal funding until it removes its officers from protest sites, but did not hear back as of this writing. David Lapan, a former spokesman for the DHS and Department of Defense, however, said in a blog post: said The creation of DHS [in 2002] was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. ... While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portlands protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place. Next, we'll address the first part of the claim: that Pelosi decried the Trump-led operation, which devolved into federal officers using tear gas and firing less-than-lethal rounds into crowds of people almost nightly in Portland, and an incident in which a federal officer threw an impact munition at a 26-year-old man, fracturing his skull and sending him to the hospital. (That incident was also captured on video.)  video. While individual offices of several Democratic leaders made public statements about the federal use of force against citizens, we are only focusing on comments specifically by Pelosi, since she is the only member of Congress with the legal authority to decide on what legislation the House votes on, and because she was the main target of Dore's video. Upon our analysis of Pelosi's press announcements, media appearances, and social media posts since Trump made the directive, a series of tweets from her official account on July 17, 2020, appeared to be the first record of the House Speaker's dissent from the presidential administration's plan. series of tweets   The following day, her office sponsored a news release that said the House was committed to "moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power" by Trump, without providing specifics, and referred to reports of federal agents in Portland using unmarked vehicles to "kidnap" protesters. (See our investigation into the truth of that claim here). news release here Then, five days later, Pelosi endorsed another statement alleging that the "anonymous federal law enforcement agents" were silencing "peaceful protesters with violence," and made the following comment at a news conference:  statement news conference The use of storm troopers under the guise of law and order is a tactic that is not appropriate to our country in any way.  To recap, it was truthful to say that Pelosi criticized how federal agents responded to American protests in summer 2020, and that at least some of those officers represented DHS. Now, we'll examine the more complicated aspect of the claim: that Pelosi was working under the public's radar to prepare legislation that would set aside taxpayer dollars to pay to deploy federal law enforcement officers in U.S. cities in line with Trump's June order. To explore that question, we analyzed the agendas of House committees in July 2020 and looked for proposals that would apply to DHS considering its role in the protests. We learned the House Committee on Appropriations  to which Pelosi does not belong  released a more than $50 billion proposal on July 6, 2020, that explained how the committee would like to fund the department in 2021. The annual DHS budget bill was framed by the House committee as a compromise with Trump's wishes for all offices within the department, which included aggressive funding to continue building a concrete-steel wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. During our read of the draft legislation, we considered the various arms of federal government to which the DHS oversees, in addition to those that had provided law enforcement at protests, such as: does not belong released Trump's wishes aggressive funding building a concrete-steel wall such as Among numerous provisions, the proposal would set aside roughly $14.6 billion for the CBP to hire new officers, among other border-security efforts, and about $7.4 billion for ICE. In total, it would set aside $50.72 billion in discretionary funding  including roughly the same amount as the country's 2020 budget for non-military units  while boosting funding for defense operations by roughly $250 million, disaster relief by $5.1 billion, and military operations overseas by $215 million. country's 2020 budget However, nowhere in the roughly 85-page piece of legislation did the committee request federal dollars in 2021 to cover the cost of sending federal agents to U.S. cities to mitigate damage to federal properties during protests. roughly 85-page piece of legislation On July 15, 2020, the House committee  which is comprised of 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans  amended the legislation so ICE would be unable to use 2021 funding for a public education program, among other changes that essentially added stipulations for how and under what circumstances DHS could use portions of the money. But no amendment pertained to the use of militarized tactics during protests in American cities. July 15, 2020 public education program In other words  yes, like Dore somewhat alleges  House Democrats could in theory include language in the proposal that would only allow the DHS to receive certain funding if it agreed not to participate in the controversial law-enforcement effort.   The committee approved the budget bill, and it was introduced to the House on July 20, 2020. But as of this writing, it was unclear when or if Pelosi would preside over a hearing in which the full House would consider the proposal, titled H.R. 7669. Also undetermined was if or to what extent representatives would lump the DHS spending plan into a wide-sweeping policy package governing other aspects of federal government  such as its response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  which is typically the process for such budget-making. committee approved titled H.R. 7669. wide-sweeping policy package coronavirus The House clerk's online calendar for the week of July 27, 2020, listed the legislation as an item "that may be considered" on the House floor in the coming days, without any more scheduling details. July 27, 2020 At least two Democratic representatives, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, asked Pelosi not to schedule the bill for a floor hearing in light of the 2020 protests. They wrote in a statement: Rep. Pramila Jayapal Mark Pocan of Wisconsin wrote The Progressive Caucus has long-standing objections to the DHS Appropriations bill, which would fund [Trump-sponsored] programs and thereby sanction the horrific violations of human rights and due process by ICE, CBP and other agencies. Without the inclusion of additional necessary reforms, we believe that the Democratic Leadership should not attempt to pass Homeland Security funding by tying it to essential coronavirus research, education, and housing funding. Now, back to the claim in question. Yes, it was accurate to say members of the House were working on a DHS budget plan in July 2020  when Pelosi and other leading Democrats were issuing public statements against the very actions of federal officers who belonged to the department. However, Pelosi had not voted on or publicly discussed the budget bill as of this report, and given the fact that she did not respond to Snopes' request for interview, there was no available evidence to prove that she agreed  or disagreed  with the proposal. Put another way: It would be false to assert that Pelosi supported the funding proposal, as the claim stated, since it was so far only approved by the House Committee on Appropriations and awaiting a House vote. Additionally, while H.R. 7669, as written, would not explicitly prohibit the use of DHS officers to protect federal properties during demonstrations, it would be misleading to claim the legislation would pump federal dollars toward such law-enforcement efforts directly. The bill, instead, would authorize the DHS to decide how to divvy up some parts of its budget  which could include funding DHS agencies that were involved in the 2020 protests  but we have no proof to affirmatively state that the proposal would pay for the controversial policing tactics in the future. In sum, while it was unequivocally true to say Pelosi criticized the actions of federal agents in U.S. cities during protests in 2020, it was false to claim she simultaneously supported a budget bill that contradicted her public stance, and that that legislation would most definitely pay for militarized policing during demonstrations in U.S. cities  with the caveat that House leaders, including Pelosi, always maintained the authority to determine how and under what circumstances DHS could use federal dollars in the future. Lapan, David. "Former DHS And Defense Dept. Spokesperson: Trump's Response To Civil Unrest In Portland Is Damaging To Our Government And Our Democracy".
 Just Security. 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "DHS Budget".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Appropriations Committee. "FY21 Homeland Security & Financial Services Appropriations Bills".
 15 July 2020. Soskin, Ben. "Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, DHS Appropriations Subcommittee Approve FY 2021 DHS Funding Bill".
 Press Releases. 7 July 2020. Spaulding, Suzanne. "Senior Adviser, Homeland Security, International Security Program".
 Center For Strategic And International Studies. Accessed 27 July 2020. Lapan, David. "Vice President of Communications".
 Bipartisan Policy Center. Accessed 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "Congressional Budget Justification FY 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Report Of The Committee On Appropriations".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Full Committee Print".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding Bill".
 6 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding bill". 15 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "House To Consider Seven-Bill Appropriations Minibus Next Week".
 20 July 2020. House Appropriations. "Division-By-Division Summary".
 Accessed 27 July 2020.  EveryCRSReport.com. "DHS Budget Request Analysis: FY2021".
 1 April 2020. Homeland Security. "FY 2021 Budget In Brief".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. National Immigration Forum. "The President's Budget Request For The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS): Fiscal Year (FY) 2021".
 27 February 2020. Altman, Heidi. "Principles For Negotiating a DHS Budget".
 National Immigrant Justice Center. 27 January 2019. Grim, Ryan. "As Trump Threatens Secret Police Deployment Nationwide, Democrats Debate Expanding Surveillance Powers And New Money For DHS".
 The Intercept. 21 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Homeland Subcommittee Approves FY21 DHS Budget Bill".
 MeriTalk. 7 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Approps Proposes FY2021 Funding Bumps For DHS, CISA".
 MeriTalk. 6 July 2020. House Committee On Appropriations. "FY 2021 Homeland Security Subcommittee Markup".
 7 July 2020. Blitzer, Jonathan. "Is It Time To Defund The Department Of Homeland Security?"
 The New Yorker. 24 July 2020. Graff, Garrett. "The Federal Crackdown In Portland Is 'Legal.' That's The Problem With It".
 The Washington Post. 22 July 2020. Wolf, Chad. "Homeland Security Chief: To Attack Our Monuments Is To Attack America".
 The Federalist. 3 July 2020. Kanno-Youngs, Zolan. "Homeland Security Turns To Defunding Statues Amid Questions Over Priorities".
 New York Times. 10 July 2020. Baker, et. al. "Cities In Bind As Turmoil Spreads Far Beyond Portland".
 New York Times. 26 July 2020. Klippenstein, Ken. "The Border Patrol Was Responsible For An Arrest In Portland".
 The Nation. 17 July 2020. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Congressional Progressive Caucus Asks Leadership Not To Bring DHS Funding Bill To The Floor".
 22 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H.R. 7617 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H. Rept. 116-453 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Bills To Be Considered On The House Floor. "Text Of Bills For The Week of Jul. 27, 2020".
 24 July 2020. McQuade, Barbara. "Why Trump's Military Tactics In Portland Will Likely Backfire".
 New York Intelligencer. 18 July 2020. Sirota, David. "Dems' Sternly Worded Letter Won't Stop Fascism".
 Too Much Information. 20 July 2020. Barrett, Devlin and Miroff, Nick. "Trump Administration Sending More Federal Agents To Reinforce Portland Courthouse".
 Washington Post. 27 July 2020. The sculpture pictured below is real, and it was indeed crafted by an Iraqi sculptor from bronze recovered by melting down statues of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the accompanying explanatory text is quite misleading: The Iraqi sculptor was not "forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam," he did not produce the memorial shown because he was "so grateful that the Americans liberated his country," and the monument was not his idea. Members of the U.S. Army paid the sculptor, who had previously worked on a few other Saddam statues, to create the work pictured according to a design of their choosing: Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] This picture of the statue was made by an Iraqi artist named Kalat, who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad. This artist was so grateful that the Americans liberated his country, he melted 3 of the fallen Saddam heads and made a memorial statue dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades. Kalat worked on this night and day for several months. To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms. It is currently on display outside the palace that is now home to the 4th Infantry division. It will eventually be shipped and shown at the memorial museum in Fort Hood, Texas.  As part of the U.S. Army's Task Force Ironhorse, the 4th Infantry Division was deployed in Iraq for most of 2003, participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, and saw many of their comrades killed and wounded in the violence that followed the end of major combat operations. In mid-2003, while the 4th Infantry Division was headquartered in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown, Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Fuss, the division's top noncommissioned officer, headed up a project to commemorate the unit's dead and conceived of a memorial featuring the figure of a forlorn soldier kneeling to mourn before empty helmet, boots, and rifle  an array of objects that traditionally represents a fallen compatriot: Task Force Ironhorse 4th Infantry    Needing a sculptor to carry out his vision, Sgt. Maj. Fuss and other Americans asked around for local talent, and an Iraqi contractor recommended a 27-year-old artist named Khalid Alussy to them. As it turned out, Mr. Alussy was one of several artisans who had worked on a pair of 50-foot bronze statues of Saddam Hussein on horseback that flanked the gateway on the main road into the presidential palace compound in Tikrit, the site of the 4th Infantry Division's temporary headquarters. Commissioned by 4th Infantry Division officers to fashion the memorial conceptualized by Sgt. Maj. Fuss, Khalid Alussy (whose first name is also rendered in English as 'Kalat') took the assignment not out love for Americans, but because he needed the money: The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since."I made the statues of Saddam  even though I didn't want to  because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons." Mr. Alussy's initial asking price was far higher than the officers had expected. He blamed the steep price of bronze. So the Americans decided to recycle the bronze Hussein-on-horseback twins. "We figured we were going to blow them up anyway, so why not take the bronze and use it for our own statues?" recalls Sgt. Fuss. "That way we could take something that honored Saddam and use it to remember all of those we lost getting rid of him." Without having to supply the metal, Mr. Alussy agreed to do the job for $8,000. By comparison, the former regime paid him the equivalent of several hundred dollars for his work on the Hussein statues. To finance the project, Sgt. Fuss publicized it in the task force's internal newspaper and asked officers to get soldiers to contribute $1 each. Within weeks, he raised $30,000.1 In July 2003, Army engineers blew up the two Saddam statues, cut them into pieces, melted them down, and delivered them to Mr. Alussy's house. (The delivery was done furtively in case Mr. Alussy's neighbors proved to be less than thrilled about his being in the employ of the American military.) Using a photograph of 1st Sgt. Glen Simpson as a model for the depiction of the kneeling soldier, Mr. Alussy began his work on the monument; near the end, another segment was added to his task: As the work neared completion, Sgt. Fuss and the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, decided it needed a clearer connection to Iraq. The general suggested adding a small child to symbolize Iraq's new future, Sgt. Fuss says. When they told the artist they wanted another statue, Mr. Alussy demanded $10,000 more. "He learned capitalism real fast," Sgt. Fuss says.1 After four months' worth of night and weekend labor, Mr. Alussy completed his assignment, and the statues were installed in an entranceway inside the 4th Infantry Division's headquarters in Tikrit. In February 2004 the statues were flown to the 4th Infantry Division Museum at the unit's home base of Fort Hood, Texas. Museum Fort Hood Somewhere along the line, this coda was added to the original e-mail: Do you know why we don't hear about this in the news? Because it is heart warming and praise worthy. The media avoids it because it does not have the shock effect that a flashed breast or controversy of politics does. But we can do something about it. We can pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our brave military who are making a difference. As Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News pointed out in a later column, the Kalat story and photo ran in that paper on 27 March 2004 and was afterwards picked up and reprinted by newspapers all over the U.S. Additional information:   <!-- Original changelog: Last updated:  25 February 200616 January 2004 Updated: 16 February 2004 11 June 2004 - updated 17 October 2005 - added info about media reporting of story 25 February 2006: reformatted 16 December 2009 - updated Add'l Info links -->   Blow, Steve.  "Sometimes, Facts Get in Way of Media-Bashing."
  The Dallas Morning News.  23 January 2005  (p. B1).   1.  Dreazen, Yochi J.  "In This Monument to Dead, the Medium Really Is the Message."
  The Wall Street Journal.  8 March 2004  (p. A1).   Kibbey, Spc. Benjamin R.  "Changing Faces: Statue Honors Fallen Heroes."
  Army News Service.  6 January 2004.   Miles, Donna.  "Memorial to Honor Fallen Task Force Ironhorse Troops."
  American Forces Press Service.  20 February 2004. Facebook, Twitter, Google Images, and websites that collect famous quotes are full of posts and memes that claim TV icon Oprah Winfrey once said the words, "When people treat you like they don't care, believe them." The question was whether or not there was evidence that she said the words.  We looked back several years and found that the quote appeared to have first been shared by a handful of Facebook and Twitter users in July and August 2013. At that time, Winfrey's name was not attached to it. For example, this tweet was the oldest posting we could find of the words: July August Winfrey tweet  When we searched Twitter for a timeline of the quote's appearances there, it looked like it wasn't until August 2014 when Winfrey's name first appeared with it. This indicated that the saying was perhaps misattributed to her. Twitter first appeared  The saying was later tweeted by former professional fighter Gary Goodridge in April 2022, without any mention of Winfrey: tweeted  To continue our research, we performed a special search on Twitter. We searched for tweets that contained the quote and filtered the results to only show messages with more than 250 likes. That search returned 15 results. None of the 15 popular tweets showed Winfrey's name next to the quote. Several of the tweets credited the saying to "Anonymous." returned 15 results We also saw several Facebook posts on pages that collect inspirational sayings. Those posts credited the quote to "Hina," "Kate," "OmI," "Bella," "ADMIN 2," "Uzi," "ShahID," and several other names we did not recognize. No evidence we found showed that the quote originally came from any specific noteworthy person, let alone Winfrey. Facebook credited Days after we published this story, we received a tweet from a reader that included a video from 1997. In that video, Winfrey is talking to American author, poet, and civil rights activist Maya Angelou, telling her of the time that she taught her what she saw to be a valuable lesson. Winfrey told Angelou that she remembered her saying the phrase, "When people show you who they are, believe them." This was similar but slightly different than the quote in the meme. video Maya Angelou  Winfrey recounted the story of Angelou telling her the phrase like this: When she first told me this story, I was talking about some bad relationship or relationship gone bad, because of my own choices. And she was saying to me, "Why are you blaming the other person? He showed you who he was. He told you who he was." And, when you look back on bad relationships, like for myself, sitting in a window waiting on him to show up, not even answering the phone. This is before we had cellphones. Not even getting on the phone, because I was afraid if it was busy for one second that he would call and I would miss the call. Not taking out the garbage on the weekends, because I might be out taking the garbage out the moment that he called. Not running the bath water, because he might call while I'm running the bath water, and I might miss the phone. And waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. When you look at that process of waiting on somebody who has told you they were going to do something and told you they were going to be there for you and they were not, they are showing you in that moment exactly who they are. That means that's somebody who cannot be trusted. So why would you the next time trust that person? So, Maya Angelou said to me, when I was telling her one of these stories about, "I'm waiting and I couldn't believe it and he didn't call me and I don't know what happened," she was saying, "My dear," in her Maya voice, "My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?" And so the adjunct of that is, when people show you who they are, believe them the first time. Don't wait for the twenty-ninth time." In sum, Winfrey did once say a phrase somewhat similar to the words in the meme. However, if we were to give credit for the saying to anyone, that credit would go to Angelou. 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 As the United States woke up to an undecided presidential election amid a worsening pandemic on the morning of Nov. 4 2020, some Twitter users noted that "National Stress Awareness Day" allegedly fell on this day: worsening noted that    The claim is not baseless, but there are at least two days popularly considered to be National Stress Awareness Day. The Nov. 4 claim has its origins in a U.K. charity named the International Stress Management Association (ISMA). This organization currently sponsors an event it named International Stress Awareness Week that was originally named, according to its website, National Stress Awareness Day when first conceived in 1998. In numerous instances that predate the 2020 election, this organization has described Stress Awareness Week as the first week of November with the Wednesday of that week being Stress Awareness Day. The ISMA is the organization that is referenced on the National Day Calendar website, which is often shared as the source for the claim that Nov. 4 is that holiday. website numerous instances website A look at Google Trends going back to 2004, however, suggests that interest in "National Stress Awareness Day," at least in the U.S., has historically peaked in April each year: in April   The reason for this appears to be that another nonprofit organization, the U.S.-based Health Resource Network (HRN), declared in 1992 that April is National Stress Awareness Month and that April 16 (the day after taxes are due) is National Stress Awareness Day. The April 16 awareness day is referenced in health or lifestyle blogs and is included in some online calendars, including one for 2020, as well.  Health Resource Network declared in 1992 April 16 health lifestyle blogs for 2020 Either way, neither date is an official holiday or government initiative. Because multiple days have been claimed as National Stress Awareness Day including Nov. 4 2020, we rank the truth of this claim "Mixture."