For the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world.
President Barack Obama this week touted the progress his administration has made in recovering from the economic recession, focusing on developments in engineering and manufacturing. Thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, the good news is the economy is growing stronger, he said in a speech on Jan. 15, 2014, at North Carolina State University. Our businesses have now created more than 8 million new jobs since we hit bottom. Because of an all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world. PolitiFact wanted to know if Obamas claim gives us an accurate picture of U.S. oil numbers. A spokesman offered up thisWhite House blog postthat touches on Obamas point in more detail. Domestic crude oil production surpassed crude oil imports in October 2013 for the first time since 1995. We also consulted the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to theirNovember 2013 report, the United Statesproducedan average of 7.8 million barrels of oil per day in October andimported7.5 million barrels of oil per day. So Obamas numbers add up. How did we arrive at this point? Kenneth Medlock, an economics professor at Rice University who serves as the senior director for the Center for Energy Studies, said there are a couple of reasons why production exceeds imports. Yes, we are producing more than we import now, but that owes to both increased production domestically and reduced demand,Medlock said. The reduced demand is due in part to the recession. Its no surprise that people cut back on gasoline consumption when theres less money in their wallets, so that lowers demand. And if demand is down, the United States doesnt need to import as much oil supply. Another cause of reduced demand is increased energy efficiency. Over the last few years, rising popularity of fuel-efficient vehicles and other innovations have led consumers and businesses to spend less on utilities and at the pump, said John Lowe, a senior associate dean and energy law professor at Southern Methodist University. Aside from reduced demand, Medlock also mentioned increased production as another reason the United States is producing more oil than it's importing. We can credit increased domestic production to innovation in regulatory infrastructure. That includes factors like the ability for companies to negotiate directly with private landowners about mineral rights, as well as open access to pipelines. But we cant tie these developments back to one president, Medlock said. They go back a couple of decades. Still, its worth noting that Obama is a known supporter of energy efficiency. When he campaigned for office, he promised to reduce the countrys dependency on foreign oil. In 2012, we rated thatPromise Keptbased on projections of the impact of his administrations fuel efficiency standards. Our ruling Obama said the United States is producing more oil domestically than its importing from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. That claim is on the money. However, a lot of this has been in the works for awhile, including dynamics that pre-date the Obama administration. Experts told us the new dynamic is due to factors like the recession, increased fuel efficiency and ramped up domestic oil production. As a simple statement on where we stand on oil exports vs. imports, though, Obamas claim is accurate. We rate it True.
Claim:  E-mail reproduces comedian Bill Cosby's platform as a write-in candidate in an upcoming presidential election. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] 0I HAVE DECIDED TO BECOME A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.  HERE IS MY PLATFORM: ( 1.)  Press 1 for English is immediately banned.  English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can. ( 2.)  We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude.  NO imports, no exports.  We will use the 'Walmart' policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.' ( 3.)  When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.  ( 4.)  All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border.  (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens. ( 5.)  Social security  will immediately return to its original state.  If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out.  The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it. ( 6.)  Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade. ( 7.)  Professional Athletes - Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life. ( 8.)  Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences.  If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc. ( 9.)  One export will be allowed...Wheat.  The world needs to eat.  A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil. (10.)  All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes.  When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whetherit's a worthy cause. (11.)  The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress. (12.)  The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get.  Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November. God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!! Bill Cosby!!!!!!!! Origins:   This piece setting out a hypothetical reactionary "platform" for a potential write-in U.S. presidential candidate was originally circulated prior to the 2008 elections and commonly attributed to entertainer  Bill Cosby.  Although the identity of the original author remains unknown, this piece is most assuredly not the work of the popular comedian:  When Dr. Cosby speaks out politically, it is generally to urge blacks to take responsibility for making the most of educational opportunities and eschewing choices that limit their potential for success.  Immigration, imports, foreign aid, steroid use in sports, and insufficient recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem are not his political btes noires.  (This "platform" has also been attributed to comic George Carlin, and it's equally out of tune with that late comedian's commonly expressed political views.) Bill Cosby speaks out Just before the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Bill Cosby himself disclaimed involvement with this "write-in candidate" e-mail on his web site: BILL COSBY IS NOT A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENTI am not a write-in candidate for President. The statement purportedly from me stating that I am a candidate is a hoax. The platform attributed to me (and at various times to Robin Williams, Andy Rooney and George Carlin) does not represent my views and in many respects is abhorrent to me. Apparently those bloggers and websites who continue to spread this hoax do not care to do even minimal fact checking. This piece has continued to circulate well beyond the 2008 elections and has since been updated to suggest that it is a platform for a potential candidate in the upcoming 2012 elections, a change which prompted the posting of yet another disclaimer on Dr. Cosby's site in September 2009: disclaimer Whatever I say is on Twitter, Facebook or BillCosby.com A viral email is appearing on the internet purporting to be a Bill Cosby statement that he is running for President of the United States in 2012 and outlining his platform. This is a hoax, completely false and with no factual basis. Bill Cosby says, "False Bill Cosby statements are not funny nor fun and sometimes mean-spirited." Last updated:  25 September 2010 Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. Supporters of a new Multnomah County Library District say a new tax structure is necessary for keeping one of the nations busiest libraries working for all of us. In a mailer, the Libraries Yes! Committee paints an already dim picture of the system.The mailer notes reduced hours and compares them to other metro-area counties: Right now, our libraries are open 44 hours per week, down from 57 hours just a few years ago. Thats the lowest of any library in the four-county region.PolitiFact Oregon was well aware that the system has cut back in certain areas, but it surprised us that the cuts had gone so far as to put operating hours behind Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. We thought a quick check was warranted -- and quick it was.We checked the website for each of the counties libraries and calculated the weekly operating hours for the main branches. Heres what we found.In Multnomah County, the Central Library is open44 hours each week.In Washington County, the Hillsboro Main Library is open64 hours eachweekand the Beaverton City Library is open63 hours.In Clackamas County, the library system is open52 hours a week.And up in Washingtons Clark County, the main Vancouver Community Library is open60 hours a week.We  also called the group responsible for the mailer and asked them about the statement. They sent us a slightly different group of numbers -- the average number of hours a library was open in each county. Their findings supported the same conclusion: Multnomah County library hours are the lowest in the four-county region.We find this statement True. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. In his new film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore makes a case that the richest Americans used to shoulder a much bigger portion of the tax burden back in the years of his childhood. In the 1950s, A lot of people got rich  and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent, Moore says in the film. Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the topmarginaltax rates were over 90 percent. So does that mean that someone in 1955 making a half million dollars had to fork over $450,000 of it to Uncle Sam? No. We are talking here about marginal tax rates. Moore doesn't go out of his way to explain this, so we will. The marginal tax rate is the top rate of income tax charged to individuals on their last dollar of earnings. So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate. On average, a person making, say, $500,000 would pay substantially less than 90 percent of their income in federal taxes. The top marginal tax rates peaked in 1952 and 1953 at 92 percent for income over $300,000. Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center did some math for us to give this some perspective. In 1952 and 1953, Williams said, when the top income tax rate was 92 percent for income over $300,000, a person would have to make waaaay more than $300,000 to actually end up paying an average of 90 percent of their income. According to Williams, someone would have to make $2,328,400, and therefore pay $2,095,560, to get to that 90 percent threshold. But people with income of less than $2.3 million  remember we're talking about 1952 and 1953  would have paid, on average, something less than 90 percent, and perhaps much less. Still, Moore's point is valid. The top marginal tax rates paid by the richest Americans were far higher in the 1950s than they are now. In 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. And although Moore didn't use the term marginal tax rate, he did say top tax rate. People without CPAs might mistake that for a person's average tax rate (it's not), but it's valid wording. And so we rule this one Mostly True. In November 2016, rumors began to swirl that the European Union had ordered the media not to report when terrorism suspects were Muslim, presumably because of pressure from Islamic groups.  The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute: post   The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state. reportedly The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016: the conservative Daily Mail   The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton's group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate. earlier ECRI Both the Mail and the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2016. As the latter group puts it: The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims. Criticism of the report centered around this passage: ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker's history of mental instability and not his religion. study, attack While the ECRI did call for an "independent press regulator," it also stated that it did not want government officials "encroaching on [media outlets'] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups." It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices. Inquiry, From the ECRI report: The Leveson Report, published in November 2012, pointed out that certain parts of the press ride roughshod over others, both individuals and the public at large, without any justifiable public interest, and that a significant number of news stories fail to meet standards of integrity and propriety and reflect a culture of recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm these may cause and the rights of those who would be affected. It also noted a significant and reckless disregard for accuracy. The report stated that the Press Complaints Commission was not independent and had failed its purpose, and recommended replacing it with a new, independent, self-regulatory body established by statute, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals, and with a range of sanctions available to it. Bolton's organization also failed to note that the ECRI's report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups. recommendations Mamou, Yves. "Council of Europe Recommends British Press NOT Report when Terrorists are Muslims." Gatestone Institute. 18 November 2016. Conway, Madeline. "Bolton calls regime change the 'only long-term solution' in Iran." Politico. 17 November 2016. Dathan, Matt. "European human rights chiefs order the British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims in crackdown on freedom of speech." The Daily Mail. 5 October 2016. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. "ECRI Report on the United Kingdom (Fifth Monitoring Cycle)." Coe.int. 4 October 2016. Teesside University. "New report reveals a rise in anti-Muslim hostility in Britain following acts of terrorism around the world." www.tees.ac.uk. 18 June 2015. On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 2017. In late May 2023, a number of Twitter accounts retweeted and criticized a post supposedly written on May 28 by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), about farmers: retweeted and criticized  (@Shamrock168339/Twitter)   (@GSchifanelli/Twitter) Contrary to what most of these users apparently assumed, however, the "Farming should be illegal" tweet attributed to AOC was actually posted by a parody account: "Farming should be illegal" tweet AOC parody account  (@AOCpress/Twitter) It was a joke. AOC did not tweet that "Farming should be illegal." No such tweet or sentiment appeared on her official Twitter account. Twitter users were similarly fooled by a previous tweet from the parody account, also fact-checked by Snopes, in which Ocasio-Cortez supposedly said "Printing money is the only way out of inflation." previous tweet fact-checked by Snopes In a May 30 tweet from her official account, Ocasio-Cortez informed the public that the parody account was "impersonating" her and "releasing false policy statements," and noted that Twitter owner Elon Musk "has engaged it, boosting its visibility": May 30 tweet FYI there's a fake account on here impersonating me and going viral. The Twitter CEO has engaged it, boosting visibility. It is releasing false policy statements and gaining spread. I am assessing with my team how to move forward. In the meantime, be careful of what you see.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 30, 2023 May 30, 2023  This is the @AOCpress tweet that Musk engaged with:  (@elonmusk/Twitter) Snopes has also fact-checked fake tweets attributed to AOC that were created image-editing software. In one such fake tweet that circulated during the COVID-19 pandemic, she allegedly urged that businesses be kept closed until after the 2020 election. In another, she allegedly called for Democrats to commence with "The Purge" (a reference to the 2013 horror film) after U.S. President Joe Biden was elected. businesses be kept closed commence with "The Purge" 2013 horror film For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Mikkelson, David. "Did AOC Tweet That Businesses Should Be Shut Down Until the Election?" Snopes, 23 June 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-businesses-closed-tweet/. Palma, Bethania. "No, AOC Didn't Tweet About 'The Purge.'" Snopes, 12 Jan. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fake-aoc-purge-tweet/. The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, portrays Donald Trump as a liberal in a new TV ad. Which presidential candidate supports higher taxes, national health care and the Wall Street bailout?asks the narratorin the Sept. 15 ad in Iowa as it shows photos of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It's Donald Trump. The ad then shows a clip of Trump saying in 2004: In many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. We have already fact-checked Trumps statements ontaxes(hes supported increases),health care(hes had different views over the years) and an attack about hisparty affiliation(he was once a Democrat). Here, we will fact-check if he supported the Wall Street bailout. Trump on the bailout In October 2008, Congress created a $700 billion emergency bailout fund called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,  to rescue banks in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. The Club for Growthcitedthree statements by Trump in support of the bailout. However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work. On Sept. 30, 2008, CNNs Kiran Chetry asked Trump about the bailout days before its final passage. The ad includes this segment of that interview: Chetry:Do you think that this bailout plan needs to pass in some way, shape or form for things to stabilize? Trump replied: Well, I think it would be better if it passed. But the ad omits the rest of Trumps statement in which he expressed some doubt about the bailout: I'm not sure that it's going to work.Youknow, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot. I don't love the idea that the government's buying back all the bad loans. How about some of the good loans? You know? I don't like the idea that the government, frankly, is going to be negotiating with people to sell those loans, because maybe we'd be better off having the best bankers in the world do that. But I think overall, it's a probable positive, other than you have to control the price of oil. Because if you don't, whatever happens with the bailout, if you want to call it the bailout, whatever happens with the bailout, is will have no impact, no positive impact. OnLarry King Liveon April 15, 2009, King asked Trump his opinion of Obama and Trump turned to the bailout in part of his answer: I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going, Trump said. On Feb. 18, 2009, Trump talked about the bank bailout onDavid Letterman: The one thing is, the government came in and intelligently put money into the banks, so that if you have your money in CDs or whatever in the banks, youre not going to lose your money at least. In response to the ad, Trumptweeted: Little respected Club for Growth asked me for $1,000,000 -- I said NO. Now they are spending lobbyist and special interest money on ads! Trumps charge relates to a June 2 letter from Club for Growth president David McIntosh to Trump asking him to contribute $1 million to the group. Trump then issued apress releasesaying that the group was trying to shake him down. Club for Growth spokesman Doug Sachtleben told PolitiFact that Trump had asked for the meeting and was interested in donating to the group. Our ruling A Club for Growth TV ad states that Trump supports the Wall Street bailout. Trump made multiple statements in support of TARP, the bailout of the banks, in late 2008 and 2009. However, the ad omits that he raised concern that the banks had received billions and were not loaning them out. Overall, we rate this claim Mostly True. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True.