California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was for (high-speed rail), before hes against it, and then hes for it again.
High-speed rail has wedged itself into the 2018 campaign for California governor, splitting the current top two Democrats in the race. Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project. Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. He added that Newsom was revising his positions when the winds blow in his direction. Given the key decisions Californias next governor will need to make on high-speed rail, we wanted to know whether Newsom has really shifted this much in his support for the massive project. We hopped aboard for a fact-check. Background on the bullet train In 2008, California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to jump-start the development of a high-speed rail network. Plans called for trains to zip across the state at 200 miles per hour, initially connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles and eventually extending the system to Sacramento and San Diego. Cost estimates for the project, however, have see-sawed from an initial $33 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion. The project has also fallen far behind schedule with construction limited to a small segment in the Central Valley. We asked Villaraigosas campaign for evidence of Newsoms shifting positions. As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support. We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle. In February 2014, however, Newsom was asked by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro:Are you pro or against the train, especially now that the California public, which approved the train in the first place, has reneged and no longer likes the train? Newsom responded:I think Im where the public was and is. Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money. Newsom went on to tell Shapiro:We dont have the federal dollars we were hoping for ... the private sector hasnt stepped up. Shapiro then asked:If you had your druthers, Gavin, would you kill the thing? Newsom responded:I would take the dollars and redirect it to other, more pressing infrastructure needs. I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly. Most are now saying it privately. This exchange gave many the impression Newsom had backed away from the project. Newsom did not clarify in the interview what kind of funds should be redirected. In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project. AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years. In this Feb. 26, 2016, file photo, the supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Newsoms response Dan Newman, Newsoms campaign spokesman, described Villaraigosas claim about shifting positions this way: The statement is extremely misleading at best, he said in an email. Villaraigosa is simply trying to score political points with a disingenuous cheap shot, by blithely ignoring the fact that the project being discussed today is significantly different than what voters supported in 2008. The spokesman said Newsom has never opposed high-speed rail. Instead, Newsom publicly scrutinized the projects business plan when cost estimates ballooned to nearly $100 billion and questioned Gov. Jerry Browns plans to use cap and trade funds for it, the spokesman said. Scrutinizing the business plan is very different from opposing (high-speed rail), Newman added. He said Newsoms comment in the 2014 radio interview about redirecting money away from the project was referring to redirecting cap and trade money away from it, not the state bond money passed by voters. He said a statement from Newsoms office in March 2014 clarifies Newsoms consistent support even as he questioned the projects finances: The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014. He added that Newsoms statements of support in more recent years are also consistent with previous comments. Experts we spoke with were split on the claim. Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right. I don't think it's a fair assessment, the professor said in an email.Newsom came out several years ago with serious doubts about the high speed rail, but I don't think he's ever said definitely he would stop the program if he became governor. Maybe he fluctuates from lukewarm to a soft no, but that's not the same as consistently changing his opinion. Key to our assessment, however, was the 2014 radio interview and Newsoms own admission that he agreed with the growing public sentiment that opposed the train at that time. We spoke with one more expert. Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project. He declined to comment about whether he believed Newsom had definitely switched his stance on high speed rail. Thompson said, however, that redirecting cap and trade money away from the project in 2014, as Newsom suggested doing, would have made the projects future a lot more difficult. Asked whether such a move would have effectively killed the project, Thompson said: I dont know what other source of money they would have found. He described cap and trade money as the key revenue source for the project both then and now, given the restrictions on other sources, including the bond funds. Our rating Villaraigosa claimed Newsom has essentially flip-flopped in his support for Californias high-speed rail, saying he was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult. A spokesman for Newsoms campaign defended the candidates stance, saying Newsom has scrutinized project costs as they have soared beyond initial estimates. He said, however, that Newsom has never turned his back on high-speed rail. We found Villaraigosa pointed to key evidence, particularly the 2014 radio interview, that shows Newsoms stance had shifted, at least for that moment in time. In fairness to Newsom, hes consistently expressed concern that the project no longer represents what voters supported in 2008 and that his main worry was its cost. Villaraigosas statement could have used this additional information. We rate his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Ted Cruz of Texas recently declared that his campaigns fundraising is astonishing and suggested thats a surprise to the Washington chattering class and maybe even former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, another Republican bidding for president. Sen. Cruz, appearing in Houston Oct. 26, 2015, to accept endorsements from statewide elected Republicans including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, celebrated how much hes raised in Texas and in general. He made us wonder with mention of the Texas-born Bush, whos trying to become the third member of his family to win the White House. Cruz said: And we finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, $3.5 million more than the Jeb Bush campaign. Cruz added that if hed predicted such an outcome relative to Bush six months before, reporters would have laughed aloud. Early in 2015,Bush drew headlinesfor raising money at a vigorous clip. No giggling here. But was Cruz right about his campaign having the biggest pile of cash on hand and exceeding Bushs balance by $3.5 million? Campaign vs. campaign, you bet your cacti. But throw in money raised by PACs and Super PACs devoted to individual candidates and it could be theres far more money stowed away to boost Bush. Then again, PAC fundraising updates wont be filed until 2016. Campaign vs. campaign To our inquiry, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier emailed us a list indicating that Cruzs campaign ended the years third quarter, June through September 2015, with more cash on hand than any other Republican aspirant. Separately, we fetched a Federal Election Commissionsummary, dated Oct. 19, 2015, stating that through September 2015, Cruzs campaign had nearly $13.8 million cash on hand. And Cruzs balance, according to the document, exceeded the cash on hand of any of 15 other listed current or former Republican presidential candidates. At No. 2, retired surgeon Ben Carson had nearly $11.3 million cash on hand, according to the summary, followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with nearly $11 million and Bush with nearly $10.3 million. To be precise, per Cruzs claim in Houston, Bushs cash on hand of $10,271,129 was a little more than $3.5 million less than Cruzs $13,778,904. Were not saying here that Cruz outraised everyone. According toanother FEC summary, also dated Oct. 19, 2015, Carson raised some $31 million through September 2015, outpacing Cruzs nearly $27 million and Bushs nearly $25 million. Businessman Donald Trump, who has led many Republican voter polls, reported a scant $254,773 cash on hand through the third quarter. But Trump, who's wealthy, also has declared plans to self-fund his candidacy. Maybe how much cash he has on hand isnt significant. Also,Politico notedOct. 15, 2015, Trump fielded about $3.7 million in donations in the third quarter. Notably too, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each ended the quarter having raised more money and also having more cash on hand than any Republican. Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state, had nearly $33 million on hand, according to the FEC, and Sanders, a Vermont senator, had $27.1 million. PACs and Super PACs Theres another wrinkle if you consider how much money PACs and Super PACs devoted to candidates may have in cash on hand. According to achartbuilt by the New York Times, last updated Oct. 16, 2015, Bush-backing PACs and Super PACs had $98.2 million cash on hand through June 2015. In contrast, Cruz PACs and Super PACs had $37.5 million cash on hand. We dont see a path to more recent balances; a footnote to the Times chart says most of these groups arent required to file an updated report until Jan. 31, 2016. Separately, the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending,posted a chartin October 2015 showing Bush PACs and Super PACs fielding far more money than any other hopeful, again with information limited to what such groups had reported through June 2015:               SOURCE: Web post,Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and Outside Groups,Center for Responsive Politics, last updated Oct. 27, 2015 (accessed the same day) The chart is preceded by explanatory text: The modern presidential campaign isn't a single organization. Yes, there's always an official campaign committee. But for every White House candidate, there is usually at least one super PAC or other outside organization devoted to getting him or her elected. These groups can solicit unlimited donations and later use them to pummel rivals  or, as seems to be the case this cycle, take on some of the duties traditionally handled by a campaign, such as organizing town hall meetings or doing voter outreach. The explanation continues: Outside groups aren't allowed to coordinate with official campaign committees, but they're often run by friends and former staffers  even family members  of the candidate they're helping. Overall, as of the middle of 2015, single-candidate super PACs in the presidential race had raised more money than the candidates themselves. But that wasn't true among Democrats, whose potential nominees raised more than the super PACs supporting them. Frazier of Cruzs camp agreed by email it could be that money accumulated to promote Bushs candidacy still runs ahead of funds raised for Cruzs cause. Regardless, she reminded, Cruz limited his Houston claim to funds raised by campaigns alone. Our ruling Cruz said his campaign finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, three and a half million dollars more than the Jeb Bush campaign. This is all so, though Bush still might remain ahead (perhaps way ahead) in money accumulated on behalf of a Republican. We wont know how much total cash has been stashed to help each candidate until PACs report again in 2016. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In her new book,Going Rogue, Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's support for a cap and trade plan was misguided. The president has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' Sadly, those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet, she wrote. Here, we're looking at Obama's comments on electricity bills. First, though, here's a quick summary of cap and trade for those who aren't famliar with it: To slow climate change, the government would set a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. To comply, companies such as electric utilities must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or buy credits  also known as allowances  to continue polluting. Companies can buy and sell the credits as necessary to conduct their business. We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicleeditorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, Obama told theChronicle. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, Obama said. Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say. There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned ourPants on Firerating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower  between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income. So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with theChroniclenearly two years ago.Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True. In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. Although the "Addams Family"-like scenario described in the text accompanying the photographs seen below was probably just someone's humorous embellishment, we couldn't summarily dismiss the pictures themselves as a joke.  Plenty of inventive (and desperate) people have come up with a number of imaginative schemes for sneaking themselves and others across national borders (a 2003 news story dealt with Illegal immigrants from India and Pakistan being smuggled from mainland China to Hong Kong inside suitcases), and this one wasn't so far-fetched to be completely unbelievable: suitcases ALIEN SMUGGLING 135-lb. woman hidden behind the dashboard of a car A U.S. Customs Primary Inspector at a border crossing asked the driver of this Suburban for vehicle registration. Suddenly, a hand came out of the glove compartment, producing the requested document, which the driver showed the inspector. Since the driver did not appear to be a member of the Addams Family, the inspector became suspicious, thus leading to a full search. Just think, if alien smugglers can put a 135-lb. body behind the dashboard, imagine what they could do with dope. Tuesday, July 31, 2001    The "passenger" seen here might be quite cramped and uncomfortable and the automobile difficult to maneuver after the modifications, but the ruse wouldn't have to be maintained for long  the car could be loaded just out of sight of border agents, driven the short distance to the crossing, and unloaded not far across the other side. Sure enough, these photographs proved to be real, pictures taken by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) agents and included in a short "illegal aliens caught in desperate attempts to cross U.S. border" article included in the September 2001 issue of U.S. Customs Today (a publication of the United States Customs Service), which noted: U.S. Customs Today Every year, federal officers from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S. Customs Service discover increasing cases of "human contraband" secreted in unusual places and wrapped in innovative disguises. The woman peering out from the automobile dashboard of a vehicle (above) tried a "spaced-out" ploy  she was discovered before the car could get across the U.S.-Mexico border, cramped, but none the worse for wear. Similarly, another would-be border crosser identified in that article was caught attempting to enter the U.S. concealed inside a seat occupied by another passenger: In April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": meme In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not."  Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: re-posted   In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureau records show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.  records In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas.  income income As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact  an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont.  629 Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarks in order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: remarks Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.  One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. But...the reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here...So the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created.  ...Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced -- despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste -- is horrendous environmental policy...No reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.  There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas -- some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface -- is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality.  A video clip of his comments can be viewed here. here Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. passed Senate The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas.  Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit.  Associated Press According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year:  article Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas Representative Joe Barton introduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it.  The bill did not endorse a specific site  in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination  there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country).  Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: condemned What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas  a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca.  The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.  Hershey, Olive. "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: 'Drop Dead!'"
 The Texas Observer. 11 September 1998. Barton, Joe. "House Resolution 629 -- Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 U.S. House of Representatives/Congressional Record. 20 September 1998 U.S. House of Representatives. "Debate Transcript --Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 Congressional Record. 7 October 1997. Associated Press. "Texas Agency Denies Permit for Waste Site."
 New York Times/Associated Press. 23 October 1998. U.S. Senate. "Debate Transcript --The Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact."
 Congressional Record. 3 April 1998. Updated [16 June 2018]: Added comment from Bill Addison. In February 2021, the U.S. Postal Service announced that they had awarded a multi-billion dollar contract to Oshkosh Defense to manufacture the next generation of mail trucks. As reports started circulating about these more fuel-efficient vehicles, much of the chatter on social media was focused on the somewhat cartoonish appearance of USPS' new mail trucks: announced The Postal Service is truly modernizing its fleet of mail trucks. The above-displayed image originated with the Postal Service and it truly shows what their new mail trucks are expected to look like when they hit the streets in 2023.   This is not, however, a genuine photograph of a physical truck. This is a concept image of what the trucks would look like in the future.  In a press release from the Postal Service about their new trucks, they noted that Oshkosh Defense "will finalize" the design before it goes into production.  will finalize Under the contracts initial $482 million investment, Oshkosh Defense will finalize the production design of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle (NGDV)  a purpose-built, right-hand-drive vehicle for mail and package delivery  and will assemble 50,000 to 165,000 of them over 10 years. The vehicles will be equipped with either fuel-efficient internal combustion engines or battery electric powertrains and can be retrofitted to keep pace with advances in electric vehicle technologies. The initial investment includes plant tooling and build-out for the U.S. manufacturing facility where final vehicle assembly will occur. Kim Frum, senior public relations representative of corporate communications for USPS, confirmed to us that the "NGDV is not a ready-made vehicle" and that the image going around social media is a "concept image."  If any more proof is needed, here's a look at the Shutterstock image (left) that was used as a base to create the image of the new Postal Service mail truck (right):   While the first NGDV should look pretty close to what is shown in this viral image when it finally hits the street in 2023, this is not a genuine photograph of a physical vehicle. This is a concept illustration of USPS' new mail trucks. President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on 28 January 2017 restricts immigration into the U.S. from seven countries with predominantly Muslim populations. However, memes and stories quickly appeared to point out that this stay does not include nations where he has business interests. The order suspends entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries. order report Prior to his inauguration, Trump said in January 2017 said that he would not divest himself of ownership of his business holding, but instead turn over management duties to his two sons. Trump's executive branch financial disclosure form, which he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission in 2015, lists LLCs based in Dubai, the U.A.E's largest city: said disclosure form,           Dubai is also the site of a Trump-owned golf course slated for completion in 2017. However, it is not immediately clear whether the sites of Trump's business holdings have anything to do with the countries affected by his executive order. completion Trump is also currently licensing his name for use on two luxury towers in Istanbul, Turkey. The disclosure form stated an income between $1 million and $5 million from that agreement: licensing   The president mentioned the towers in a December 2015 interview with Breitbart News chair Stephen Bannon, who would go on to become Trump's chief advisor. Trump said at the time: interview I have a little conflict of interest 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towerstwo towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two.. In January 2017, the State Department issued a travel warning for Turkey, citing "increased threats from terrorist groups." Trump's FEC filing also included holdings in Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Indonesia. issued Nowrasteh, Alex. "Guide to Trumps Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." The Cato Institute. 26 January 2017. Sullivan, Andy et al. "Trump says won't divest from his business while president." Reuters. 11 January 2017. Riehl, Dan. "Trump blasts Obama while warning of World War III." Breitbart.com. 1 December 2015. U.S. Department of State. "Turkey Travel Warning." travel.state.gov. 25 January 2017. FACT CHECK: Do Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood?  Claim: Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood.   Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, July 2015] @olivegarden gives $ to planned parenthood, who are accused of selling baby body parts. No more breadsticks for me. #PlannedButcherhood @olivegarden #PlannedButcherhood  hotpink (@hotpink100) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP Profiting off the most vulnerable: terrified mothers & babies. @olivegarden donates to #PlannedParenthood. @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP @olivegarden #PlannedParenthood  ConservativeOutreach (@conservoutreach) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   Olive Garden restaurants fund Planned Parenthood: think of the skulls they crush with that money, next time u chew an olive there...  Christian Tea Party (@ChristianTParty) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   I will boycott all companies which support @ppact. None are essential and there are plenty of other options. @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden @ppact @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden  Joe American (@MidAmericanGuy) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   Origins: Beginning on 14 July 2015, a controversy involving Planned Parenthood dominated conversation topics on social media. Among the rumors that were subsequently circulated about Planned Parenthood  was the claim that Olive Garden restaurants (or their parent company, Darden) is currently donating (or had previously donated) money to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood The claim about Olive Garden donating to Planned Parenthood was not new: Does Olive Garden still support Planned Parenthood? Last info found from 2007 https://bit.ly/5738R #prolife #tcot #prolife #tcot  Ms. B. (@msbeeee) June 18, 2009 June 18, 2009   Write to Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden), stop giving to Planned Parenthood https://t.co/FHZJxl4, info: https://t.co/rv7b57I https://t.co/FHZJxl4 https://t.co/rv7b57I  LifeLetters, Julia (@lifeletterj) August 8, 2011 August 8, 2011   Since Olive Garden is a corporate sponsor of Planned Parenthood, I think they should serve unlimited breadsticks in the waiting room.  Liza (@thelizakate) October 5, 2011 October 5, 2011   Examples of the rumor concerning Olive Garden and Planned Parenthood were abundant, but tracking a definitive source documenting its claim was another matter entirely. Many people who repeated it cited a March 2012 "boycott list" published on the anti-abortion web site Life News, but that list offered zilch in the way of any proof that Olive Garden (or any of the other companies listed on it) actually supported Planned Parenthood. What's more, that years-old list didn't even describe how it came to the conclusion that any of the companies it listed currently or previously donated funds to Planned Parenthood. published Other critics cited a 2012 article published on the site XOJane urging its readers to patronize businesses that supported Planned Parenthood, in which Olive Garden was also mentioned. However, that XOJane article cited the 2011 Life News article, which made near-identical claims about companies supporting Planned Parenthood without providing any documentation for them. article The 2011 Life News article included an assertion by anti-abortion group Life Decisions International (LDI) suggesting that companies frequently hide evidence of their donations to Planned Parenthood: We learned early on that corporate leaders will turn to devious methods to continue supporting Planned Parenthood. For example, one corporation had donated $5,000 to the pro-abortion group every year since 1991. After becoming a boycott target, the corporation donated $25,000 and for four years told consumers they do not support Planned Parenthood. Therefore, do not be surprised if a corporation responds that it is no longer supporting Planned Parenthood. Such statements create an unreachable standard of proof for those wishing to verify this type of claim,  suggesting that corporate denials are insufficient evidence while offering no proof of their own assertions. And since the primary purpose of such corporate donations is to generate goodwill by funding worthy causes and organizations, it would make little sense for a business to simultaneously support a given non-profit or charity while publicly denying any such beneficence. Planned Parenthood's Annual Report for 2013 [PDF] is the most recent available and includes no specific mention of any donors. However, Olive Garden's Twitter account has replied to concerned customers about whether or not the company currently or previously supported Planned Parenthood: PDF @MidAmericanGuy We have never donated to them. We focus our giving on helping end hunger. Last yr we gave 3+ MM lbs of food to food banks. @MidAmericanGuy  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   For those who subscribe to the belief that a company might donate money and lie about it, the non-profit and non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) lists all Planned Parenthood donors as far back as 2010 (before LDI claimed in 2011 and 2012 that Olive Garden was among Planned Parenthood's supporters). In all the available  data listed on CRP's web site, neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants appears among Planned Parenthood donors. Center for Responsive Politics data That list, however, provided an amusing twist concerning tweets calling for a boycott of Olive Garden due to their purported support of Planned Parenthood: While no Darden Restaurants brands appeared on the list, Twitter was slotted at #48 among Planned Parenthood donors.  So to remain ideologically pure, one would need to find an alternative social media site upon which to voice disapproval of Planned Parenthood  after all, those pro-boycott tweets are generating revenue for Twitter, a known supporter of Planned Parenthood. On 23 July 2015, Olive Garden replied to a snopes.com query as to whether the chain (or Darden Restaurants) donated to Planned Parenthood: Neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants has ever donated to Planned Parenthood. Rather, our company strives to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others through programs such as Olive Garden Harvest. Through the Harvest program, every Olive Garden across the country donates fresh, wholesome food to a local food bank on a weekly basis. Last year, Olive Garden donated more than 3 million pounds of food to those in need. Last updated: 23 July 2015 Originally published:  22 July 2015 On Jan. 6, 2020, amidst escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, U.S. Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Az., tweeted a picture of former President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, along with the caption "The world is a better place without these guys in power": airstrike  However, Obama and Rouhani never met face-to-face during the former's term of office, and the image of the two men tweeted by Gosar was a fake created by altering a 2011 photograph of Obama's meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss nuclear-liability laws: Manmohan Singh  Moreover, Gosar's critical caption for the fake photo ("The world is a better place without these guys in power") was inaccurate, as Rouhani is still very much in power as Iran's president. Rouhani After the picture of Obama and Rouhani was identified as a fake, Gosar then criticized the "dim witted reporters" who pointed it out and attempted to claim that the false and misleading aspects of his tweet were irrelevant:   Reuters. "'Never Threaten the Iranian Nation,' Rouhani Tells Trump."
  The New York Times.  6 January 2020. Wright, Tom.  "Indian, U.S. Leaders Meet on Nuclear Law."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 November 2011.