Fannie Mae is loosening credit standards in order to assist in providing mortgage loans.
Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003.
In September 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of news reports and social media posts that claimed the department store chain Kohl's was launching a line of clothing themed around the movement against racial injustice and police brutality known as Black Lives Matter (BLM). On Sept. 9, 2020, the website Shore News Network published an article with the headline "Kohl's Stores Announce New Line of Black Lives Matter Clothing," which reported that: article "Kohls Department Stores, which operates Jersey Shore-based box stores has announced a new line of Black Lives Matter and equality based t-shirts that will be available for purchase in select Kohls department stores. The shirts will be available on September 21st." On Sept. 16, 2020, Twitter user @ElizabethKlave3 posted a widely shared tweet that read:  tweet "I just called Kohl's and they confirmed that they will be selling BLM merchandise. I asked them if they were going to sell back the blue and they said no not at this time. This is a shame and they will no longer have me as a customer."   Those claims contained a mixture of truth and falsehood. Kohl's did announce, on Sept. 7, 2020, that it had collaborated with a local business near the company's headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to produce "a line of tees for the whole family to support racial equality": announce "We've partnered with Cream City Print Lounge, a Milwaukee-area Black-owned business, to create a line of tees for the whole family to support racial equality. Mark your calendars for 9/21 to shop the line in select stores and at Kohls.com. With this launch, Kohl's is proud to donate $100,000 to the The National Urban League, which strengthens economic empowerment, equity and civil rights."   The T-shirts themselves do not appear to feature the words "Black Lives Matter" or "BLM." A spokesperson for Kohl's told Snopes the clothing would not feature the name of the movement itself and clarified, "The collection is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter organization." Photographs of some of the T-shirts being printed, which were posted on Facebook by local reporter Cassidy Williams, featured the slogans "Black culture is not a trend" and "Racism is not cool" as well as the raised fist symbol, which has been used as a symbol of "unity and solidarity", the BLM movement, and as a symbol of "Black power." posted unity and solidarity BLM Black power The T-shirt shown in the Kohl's announcement on Sept. 7 also featured the same "raised fist" symbol with the words "Justice, Respect, Change." On Facebook, Cream City Print Lounge advertised a launch party for its collaboration with Kohl's, and the graphic for the event featured T-shirts bearing the slogans "Black culture is not a trend," "Together we can create change," "Peace, love, equality," and the raised fist with "Justice, Respect, Change"  but again, rather conspicuously, no T-shirts bearing the name "Black Lives Matter" or "BLM." graphic As a result, it's hard to argue that it would be more accurate to describe the forthcoming Kohl's line as "BLM T-shirts," rather than "T-shirts advocating racial equality." Anti-racism is not synonymous with the BLM movement, and vice versa, just as anti-racist rhetoric and symbolism should not be conflated with, or reduced to, the slogan "Black Lives Matter." And in this case, the company happens to have made that distinction explicit.  Furthermore, the political and social atmosphere that prevailed in the United States in the autumn of 2020 was one of intense and widespread division surrounding acts of police violence towards Black people and resulting protests. The BLM movement, in general, and the Black Lives Matter Global Network in particular, were the subject of a great deal of criticism, especially among right-leaning observers and supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. So the distinction between "BLM T-shirts" and "T-shirts advocating racial equality" could hardly have been more substantive.  Nonetheless, the description of the T-shirts as "BLM merchandise" was clearly not arbitrary, and obvious areas of overlap existed between the principles and messages advocated by the broader BLM movement, on the one hand, and the collaboration between Kohl's and Cream City Print Lounge. So the mistake was an understandable one, but a significant mistake all the same. We issue a rating of "Mixture." Shore News Network. "Kohl's Stores Announce New Line of Black Lives Matter Clothing."
 9 September 2020. Claim:  Harvard is offering tuition-free education to African-American students majoring in the sciences.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Greetings: A quick note about an exciting scholarship opportunity In case you know anyone who might be interested... Harvard University wants to get the word out the University has a massive science endowment for African American (High School Juniors/Seniors) who are interested in majoring in the sciences, Chem, Biology, Physics etc. A four year tuition free education at Harvard Univ. (regardless of parents income)! The professor to contact for more info. is:  Professor Gregory Tucci,tucci@fas.Harvard.edu617-496-4668. If you know any African American junior or senior students who excel and are passionate for the sciences please pass along this info  Origins:  This item promoting a "massive science endowment" that supposedly provides "four year tuition free educations" for African-American science students at Harvard has been circulating since at least mid-2009 and has been reprinted in a number of online bulletins and newsletters that publish information about educational opportunities.  Although Harvard does provide a number of financial aid opportunities that prospective students might qualify for, a completely tuition-free, four-year program for African-American students majoring in the sciences is not among them, according to the professor whose name, address, and phone number have been attached to this item: Thank you very much for your interest in financial support for students interested in the sciences at Harvard University.  Unfortunately the information you received regarding "four year tuition free education ... regardless of parent's income" appears to be a hoax.     Additionally, I am not involved in admissions or financial aid. Harvard has very generous financial aid support for all students who qualify on the basis of need.  On a very positive note, families with incomes below $60,000 need not contribute to the cost of sending their children to Harvard.   Further, families with incomes up to $180,000 with assets typical for the income level need not pay more than 10 percent of their incomes.  No student should be discouraged from applying to Harvard because of financial concerns.  The Financial Aid Office is always eager to work with talented students to make sure they receive the financial support that will make a Harvard education possible for them.  For more information, please visit the financial aid web site: https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/, or call 617-495-1581. https://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/ Additional information:     Financial Aid Overview  (Harvard College)  Last updated:  27 March 2010 In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016. Claim:  A Texas business provides big game hunters with an opportunity to participate in "horse hunt adventures."   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] There's a blog going around about "Texas Horse Hunts" where horses are hunted on paid hunts....could this possibly be true?   Origins:  In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines:  petition blog site If youve dreamed of big game horse hunting in Texas and are interested in a superior, top quality, exciting and successful horse hunting experience, join Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions, LLC and Master Guide Tom D. Welderman IV on your next horse hunt adventure. Youll enjoy some of the most dynamic and beautiful wilderness in the world! We guide areas within National Wildlife Refuges and receive the  finest guiding expertise, personal service and attention to detail found anywhere. Im a guide because I love horse hunting, Texas, the outdoors and because I enjoy sharing these things with other humans who appreciate what horse hunts have to offer. Our goal, aside from helping you harvest a magnificent trophy horse, is to share with you this incredible state and all that it has to offer. When you leave one of our camps as a friend, we want you to take home fond lifetime memories of your horse hunt experience. The quality of your horse and your whole experience is my primary concern. We are not narcissistic; your hunt with us is not about us but about you and your horse. This is your horse hunt and we want to help fulfill all of your expectations. Multiple factors pointed to the whole thing being a satirical hoax, however, including:  The lack of any previous news coverage or any effort to publicize the business beyond a single blog entry.  The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites.  The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a  rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004. Rogues Gallery Kennel lying dead news article stock photo Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): article Hi, my name is Joseph, and I hunt horses with sticks, crossbows and firearms. And if you believe this, Ive got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you. Sadly, though, several people do believe it, thanks in part to a photo stolen from my personal blog, https://www.rogueskennel.com, and used out of context on a site proclaiming to be for Texas Horse Hunts. Not hunting on horseback, but actually hunting and killing horses. It's left me having to assert and explain something so bizarre I never thought Id have to utter these words  I have not, do not and would not ever hunt horses. The photo they found on my site and reposted was taken in Alaska, after my wife and I retrieved a horse that died of natural causes from Sterling residents who had no way to bury it and didnt want it to attract summer bears. The part that really smarts is that the most extensive damage to our reputations was not done by the initial website post. Rather, it was from the dozens of outraged animal rights activists on Facebook pages and other social media sites who began spreading the photo with lightning speed. (A week after we published this article, all the photos and descriptive information were removed from the Texas Horse Hunt page.)  The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. horse slaughterhouses  We could find no record of "Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions" being registered as an LLC (limited liability company) in Texas or any other state.  The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing  Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport." article  One of the best ways of determining whether web-advertised businesses of suspect nature are legitimate is by attempting to purchase what they're supposedly offering for sale (because the whole point of businesses to make money by servicing customers). But the Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions page includes neither a physical address nor even a general indication of where in the world the supposed hunts take place (somewhere in Texas, presumably), key pieces of information which any prospective customer would want to know.  And none of our e-mails or phone calls to Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions expressing interest in participating in one of their "adventures" was returned. Last updated:  29 May 2013 FACT CHECK: Did Kentucky hire an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs?      Claim:  Kentucky hired an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs.    Example:   [Collected via Twitter and Facebook, August 2015] Why can't an Amish worker at a DMV refuse to give out driver's licenses? pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB  Hamybear (@hamybear) August 16, 2015 August 16, 2015    Origins: On 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court's decision in the case Obergefell vs. Hodges [PDF] held that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Almost immediately, that decision led to a number of rumors and viral claims; that pedophiles would soon be granted similar rights, that Joe Biden had gone on a victory spree, and that Facebook had begun tracking the political beliefs of users via a celebratory rainbow filter for profile pictures.) PDF pedophiles Joe Biden rainbow filter Tangential rumors circulated pertaining to individuals and businesses who subsequently (or previously) went out on a limb for their religious opposition to marriage equality, which included a false claim involving a pastor purportedly  jailed for refusing to marry a gay couple and the true case of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay damages stemming from a pre-decision refusal to serve a same-sex couple. The meme displayed above was inspired by Kentucky court clerk named Kim Davis, who unwittingly starred in a viral video during which she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling. jailed bakery Kim Davis On 12 August 2015, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Davis [PDF] to begin issuing licenses as requested. Bunning wrote in his ruling that by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others," Davis had violated the law, adding: ordered PDF Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The humorous image above was clearly created to poke fun at Davis over the legal dispute (and the general issue of allowing personal religious beliefs to trump the requirements of employment and public service), a subtlety lost on many social media users who hadn't heard of the marriage license controversy in Kentucky and consequently didn't get the joke. The jape partially relies outsider assumptions about Amish  culture, one of which is the notion that Amish people are prohibited from driving due to their religion. That's not precisely accurate, as use of a horse-and-buggy over cars is primarily a cultural choice and not part of a specific anti-automobile religious edict applied to everyone: Amish anti-automobile Although the Amish are allowed to use automobiles for social and business functions, the church rules prohibit members from owning as well as driving a car. Amish businessmen are also not allowed to provide loans to non-Amish employees for the purpose of buying a vehicle. Ownership of an automobile is considered a taboo. It is important to the community to maintain the horse and buggy as a symbol of Amish identity. The joke also leans on a (fallacious) assumption that Amish citizens neither seek nor require state driver's licenses, part of a broad, inaccurate perception of the community as frightened of the outside world. The Amish often need state-issued ID for a variety of day-to-day purposes, including the operation of lucrative businesses (contrary to the belief Amish people reject wealth and/or financial success entirely or that they lack awareness of modern conventions). Photographic requirements have presented problems for Amish people seeking licenses, however, as their traditions generally favor the avoidance of photography. (Yet another misconception asserts the practice is due to a primitive, uneducated fear that the camera might "steal" a person's soul; in actuality, it's more due to intentional humility and not a fear of technology.) state-issued ID variety operation photography fear steal soul While the meme seen here satirizes the imposition of religious belief on outsiders by a presumably stricter sect, it should be noted that Amish communities are known for a marked disinclination to interact with the "English" world save for necessary circumstances. Although their religious beliefs are notoriously stringent, Amish folks are far likelier to be encroached upon by a conflict of law and faith than the other way around. disinclination Last updated:  17August 2015 Originally published: 17August 2015 A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017: circulating various @realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn  Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017 June 9, 2017  The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." Dumb and Dumber sloth captions However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)" original Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to uglify the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump, Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right): An article of faith among U.S. conservatives of the Cold War era stated that the Soviets aimed to destroy America from within by promoting a program of "creeping socialism," by which they meant the gradual replacement of democratic, free-market institutions with centralized government control. Never mind that the communists themselves subscribed to a different version of the end of free-market economies, namely Marx's theory that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction, an end which he argued was inevitable and would culminate in a socialist revolution. theory Regardless, conservative icons such as Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater saw creeping socialism in every piece of progressive legislation that came around the pike, from Roosevelt's New Deal to Medicare to LBJ's Great Society social-welfare programs of the mid-1960s. They further claimed that at least one Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had explicitly announced the regime's intent to export "small doses" of socialism to the U.S. in a statement he allegedly made in 1959. Reagan was fond of quoting this supposed pronouncement in speeches he gave as a crusader for conservative causes before launching his own political career later in the '60s. This instance is from an address he delivered in 1961: address The communists are supremely confident of victory. They believe that you and I, under the constant pressure of the Cold War, will one by one give up our democratic traditions and principles and customs. Only temporarily, of course, but only temporarily we will turn to totalitarian tactics and methods just for the purpose of opposing the enemy. And then they cynically believe we will one day awake to find that we have, in adopting these tactics, become so much like the enemy that the causes for conflict have disappeared between us. Three and a half months before his last visit to this country, Nikita Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism until one day they will awaken to find they have communism." Variants of this passage also appeared in newspaper opinion columns, letters to the editor, and even political ads portraying Democratic Party candidates as enemies of freedom. This example is from the Muncie, Indiana, Star Press of 5 November 1960:   Fast-forwarding to some 56 years later, we find the same quote being deployed against Democrats of today, only now in the preferred venue of social media: "giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have communism."-Nakita Khrushchev pic.twitter.com/mQVfhYvaNo pic.twitter.com/mQVfhYvaNo  Susan Minor (@susanminor41) April 14, 2016 April 14, 2016 The authenticity of the quote was questioned practically from the get-go, however. In 1962, Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-Montana) assailed it as "a fabrication, attributed to the leader of the Communist Party, (which) arouses Americans against their elected officials." Metcalf told the Los Angeles Times that the quote was being circulated by organizations including the far-right John Birch Society, which operated a bookstore called Poor Richard's Book Shop in Hollywood: [Metcalf] said the statement has been printed on post cards distributed by Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. and Poor Richard's Book Shop, both of Los Angeles, but that the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Library of Congress have all been unable to verify the quotation. Metcalf said such material leads readers "to believe that their President, their senators, their representatives, their judges and local officials are Communist stooges. Thus a lie is used to perpetrate a greater lie." The Times reported that the president of Coast Federal Savings & Loan, Joe Crail, claimed responsibility for printing the postcards but admitted he couldn't authenticate the quote and said the campaign had been discontinued for that reason. Similarly, Sen. Morris K. Udall (D-Arizona) recruited the Library of Congress to verify the authenticity of the statement attributed to Khrushchev and shared the results in the 10 May 1962 issue of The New Republic: issue "We have searched the Legislative Reference Service files, checked all the standard reference works on quotations by Khrushchev, and consulted with the Slavic division of the Library of Congress, the Department of State, and the US Information Agency, in an attempt to determine the authenticity of this quotation. From none of these sources were we able to produce evidence that Khrushchev actually made such a statement." All that supposedly changed four years later when a witness came forward to claim that Khrushchev had uttered those very words in his presence. Ezra Taft Benson, who served two terms as President Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture and would later head the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a 1966 address at Brigham Young University (BYU) that Khrushchev made the statement during a one-on-one discussion the two had in September 1959: address I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half day, when he visited the United States. Not that Im proud of it -- I opposed his coming then and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But according to President Eisenhower, Khrushchev had expressed a desire to learn something of American agriculture, and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, would live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance: You Americans are so gullible. No you wont accept Communism outright, but well keep feeding you small doses of socialism until youll finally wake up and you find you already have Communism. We wont have to fight you. Well so weaken your economy until you fall like over-ripe fruit into our hands. Such a meeting did occur, documents show, but Benson's 1966 account of their exchange on communism raises more questions than it answers. Benson had cited versions of the same quote on more than one occasion prior to 1966 without claiming that Khrushchev said it in his presence. Like Ronald Reagan routinely did during the same period, Benson told audiences that the Soviet premier made the remark before, not during, his 1959 visit to the United States. Benson presented it as follows in an August 1961 commencement address at BYU (from a report in the Provo Daily Herald, emphasis added): The Communist strategy, said the speaker, was laid down by Nikita Khrushchev three weeks before he visited the United States when he was quoted as making this statement: "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have communism." "For years LDS Church leaders have warned against such a development, Elder Benson said. He introduced the quote more or less the same way in a book he wrote the following year (1962) called The Red Carpet: Socialism -- The Royal Road to Communism (emphasis added): A few months before coming to the United States Khrushchev is reported to have said: "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have communism." The three different versions of the story don't jibe. Did Khrushchev utter the remark three weeks before visiting the U.S., a few months before, or did he utter it during a face-to-face meeting with Benson on U.S. soil? Why did Benson write in 1962 (three years after Khrushchev's visit) that the Soviet premier was "reported" to have said it? Why was there no mention before 1966 of Khrushchev's saying it to his face? Unfortunately, Ezra Taft Benson died in 1994, so we can't ask him. Nor, as far as we know, has any third-party witness to the alleged exchange ever come forward. Far from settling the question of whether Khrushchev really vowed to slip Americans "small doses of socialism," Benson's conflicting stories leave the authenticity of the remark very much in doubt. We should also mention, in passing, that U.S. conservatives were sounding alarms about Americans being plied with "small doses of socialism" long before Khrushchev attained the premiership of the Soviet Union. This is National Association of Manufacturers President Claude A. Putnam speaking in April 1950 (as reported in the Times Herald of Olean, New York): Socialism "is being foisted on the American people piecemeal," says Claude A. Putnam of Keene, N.H., president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Putnam, who spoke here, warned that an "all-powerful government is a menace to freedom." The American people "are being given small doses of socialism, disguised as social gains and gifts of something for nothing," he declared. If we've learned nothing else in the roughly 60 years of its existence, the durability of the Khrushchev quote shows that a politically charged statement needn't be authenticated to serve its purpose as a partisan cudgel. As if to prove the point, the quote was tweeted out to 70,000 followers as recently as February 2018 by none other than Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan's son: We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have communism."-- Nikita Khrushchev  Michael Reagan (@ReaganWorld) February 18, 2018 February 18, 2018 Benson, Ezra Taft.  "Our Immediate Responsibility."
  Latter Day Conservative.  25 October 1966. Jeffries, Stuart.  "Karl Marx's Guide to the End of Capitalism: A Primer."
  The Guardian.  20 October 2008. Reagan, Ronald.  "Encroaching Control."
  The Reagan Speech Preservation Society.  30 March 1961. Udall, Morris K.  "Khrushchev Could Have Said It."
  The New Republic.  7 May 1962. The Daily Herald.  "542 Receive Degrees at BYU Rites."
  27 August 1961. The Los Angeles Times.  "Right-Wingers Hit on 'Quote' by Khrushchev."
  9 March 1962. Times Herald.  "Keene Warns Against Spread of Socialism."
  14 April 1950. On Nov. 28, 2011, the Democratic National Committee released two videos designed to paint Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper. The shorter,30-second versiongives a taste of the attack, specifically citing abortion and health care, and directs viewers to a website with afour-minute versionthat offers alleged flip-flops on a variety of other issues. For this item, well check one of the claims from the four-minute version -- specifically, whether Romney has changed his position on signing a taxpayer protection pledge. We're looking at other aspects of the ad in separate items. Heres the relevant portion from the DNC ad: Screen text: Will not sign pledge Audio ofCandy Crowley: Republican Mitt Romney says he will not sign a no-new-taxes pledge. Screen text: Then he did Audio from Romney radio ad: Im proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The first clip refers to an announcement during Romneys 2002 gubernatorial campaign that he would not sign a pledge circulated by Citizens for Limited Taxation, a Massachusetts-based anti-tax group. Heres how theBoston Globecovered the news: In a break with Acting Governor Jane Swift and her GOP predecessors, Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney is refusing to rule out tax increases and said yesterday he will not sign a no new taxes pledge, the newspaper wrote. Romney said that while he opposes all tax increases in principle, he will not make such a pledge in writing. The article went on to quote Romney saying, I am not in favor of increasing taxes. At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind, and that's true on this and other issues. TheGlobecited another comment by Romney that had been reported by theUnion-Newsof Springfield, Mass. I'm against tax increases, Romney told attendees of Western Massachusetts GOP meeting, according to theUnion-News. But I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth. Barbara Anderson, an official with Citizens for Limited Taxation, was unhappy with Romney's refusal to sign, which came after hed met with her for half an hour. He's thinking like an independent businessman who doesn't sign pledges, she suggested to theGlobe. Meanwhile, theBoston Heraldquoted then Romney deputy campaign manager Eric Fehrnstrom saying, Mitt Romney doesn't have to sign a piece of paper to have a position on an issue. He's pledged to oppose any tax increase, he doesn't support them, his position on taxes is clear. In an interview with theGlobe, Fehrnstrom was even more dismissive, calling the pledge government by gimmickry, the newspaper reported. Put it all together and you have a candidate who didnt just decide against signing a pledge but who cast doubt on the propriety of such pledges in general. Now well fast-forward a few years, when Romney, having finished a term as governor of Massachusetts, was running for president. On Dec. 31, 2006, Romney became the first major candidate for the 2008 election to sign a taxpayer protection pledge offered by Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist. In signing the pledge, Gov. Romney firmly commits himself in writing to fiscal discipline and economic common sense, Norquist said in anews release. Mitt Romney has told taxpayers in no uncertain terms that he plans to look out for their interests. Romney hardly signed the Norquist pledge covertly. On Jan. 4, 2007, he issued apress releasetouting his action, and on Oct. 5, 2007, he released aradio adspotlighting it. Thats where the DNC got the clip used in its ad. For years, conservative candidates for president signed their name on the dotted line pledging to oppose tax increases, Romney said in the ad. I'm Mitt Romney. I'm proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The others have not. I signed the tax pledge because I want everyone to know where I stand. We've got to get taxes down and grow our economy. I believe it's not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money and when you die. That's why I'll kill the death tax once and for all and roll back tax rates across the board. And savings? When I'm president, for every middle class American, the new tax rate on your interest, dividends, and capital gains will be absolutely zero. I stood firm to roll back taxes as governor. I'll roll back taxes as president. In this case, then, Romney not only signed a written pledge but actively broadcast it to the electorate. Its worth noting that the two pledges are not exactly the same. One addressed the state context and one the federal context. The Massachusetts text is a pledge to ... all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes. The Norquist pledge, to which Romney is still a signatory, requires the signer to oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses  and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. Still, despite the differences in wording, we think the pledges are equivalent in their underlying requirements. Our ruling In 2002, Romney refused to make a pledge in writing on taxes. Four years later, he signed one and touted it as a selling point for his candidacy. In our book, thats a clear flip-flop. We rate the DNCs charge True. Urging Texans to find out how public schools are spending their money, Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative-leaning Empower Texans, which advocates for limited government, suggests that maybe too many non-teachers are soaking up taxpayer dollars that could be spent on classroom instruction. Everyone says public schools in Texas are underfunded, but are they? Sullivan says in the May 14 Web video, pointing out that more than half of the public school system's funding is spent on expenses outside the classroom. You might say there's a little overhead. There are 321,092 public school teachers in Texas. There are 313,850 non-teachers in our public schools, he continues. Do we really need one non-teacher for every teacher on the public school payroll? We're not weighing in on the value of non-teachers in the schools, but we wondered if Sullivan got his ratio right. He pointed us to the Texas Education Agency website, which has annual snapshots of public education in Texas both statewide and by district. The reports cover 90 statistics including student demographics, average college admission test scores and how many people each district employs broken down by job type. According to the most recent snapshot, 634,942 full-time employees worked in the public education system (not including charter schools) in 2008-09. Of those, 321,092 were full-time teachers and 313,850 staff members held other jobs. Who are all these non-teachers? According to the snapshot, teachers accounted for 51 percent of the schools' workforce in 2008-09. Auxiliary staff  such as security, public information officers and grant writers, according to TEA  were the next biggest grouping, 28 percent, followed by educational, at 10 percent, professional support staff, 8 percent, and administrative staff, 4 percent. This adds to more than 100 percent, the agency said, because some full-time employees divide time between positions. Sullivan said Empower Texans isn't suggesting that all 'non-teachers' are bad  clearly many are needed, but that the one-to-one teacher to non-teacher ratio seems a bit high. In the Web ad, Sullivan sounds a critical note, saying: Hey, we've got bureaucrats to pay. If you think our classrooms are underfunded  and they probably are  the money should be pretty easy to find. Just walk down to your nearest administrative complex. There's a counterpoint. Debbie Ratcliffe, the TEA's communications director, said: It takes a village to run a school district. There naturally are going to be a lot of people on school payrolls that aren't teachers, Ratcliffe said. Just think of the number of bus drivers and custodians and all those kinds of folks. Could you make a school run without them? Yeah, but it sure is a lot harder. Ratcliffe shared a more recent standard report that breaks down the full-time school employees for 2009-10 in detail. As of March 2010, the report says, statewide school district personnel totaled 661,285. Teachers made up about half of that, accounting for 333,090 full-time staff. Almost all the employees that fall under teaching staff are pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. About 400 are labeled not applicable, which Ratcliffe said includes tutors and study hall monitors. The 2010 count puts the number of administrative staff at 25,525, or 3.9 percent of all workers. So who are the other 302,670 employees  the bulk of the non-teachers in Sullivan's claim? About 5,136 are librarians, 11,082 are counselors, 5,916 are nurses and 3,924 are speech therapists, among others. Some 178,140 are classified as auxiliary staff, a category that includes security personnel, public information officers and grant writers. How does Texas stack up nationally? On par, according to the the National Center for Education Statistics' most recent data. In 2007, teachers accounted for 51 percent of all elementary and secondary public school employees. In 20 states, teachers accounted for less than 50 percent of total staff, including Virgina (35 percent). In 30 states, teachers made up 50 percent or more of all staff, including South Carolina (72 percent). According to another report, released in November, instructional aides accounted for about 12 percent of all full-time public school staff nationwide, instructional coordinators and supervisors made up 1 percent, guidance counselors (2 percent), librarians (1 percent), student and support staff (23 percent), school administrators (3 percent), school district administrators (1 percent) and administrative support staff (7 percent). Where does all this leave Sullivan's statement? He correctly cites the number of teachers and non-teachers, per the education agency's latest snapshot report. More recent data available from the agency shows both have increased; still, the ratio of teachers to non-teachers is about the same. But Sullivan's online call to action doesn't do justice to the state's actual mix of school workers. The majority of non-teachers aren't administrators or paper shufflers; they're people who work directly with students including counselors, librarians, therapists and bus drivers. We rate Sullivan's statement as Mostly True. This story was updated to correct the total number of public school employees to 634,942. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention