Man Claiming to Be Transgender Arrested for Filming Women in Restroom
On 1 April 2016, the web site Breitbart published an article reporting that a California man posing as a woman had been arrested after filming women in the bathroom of a Macy's department store: article A Palmdale, California, man wearing womens clothing was arrested in a Lancaster Macys store after he was seen in a womens bathroom. The man was allegedly videotaping women in the bathroom. Jason Pomare, 33, was arrested over the weekend after mall security officers learned he had been hanging out in a Macys department store womens bathroom. The security guards contacted a Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) deputy who found the cross-dressing man in a mall storage area, NBC Los Angeles reported. Breitbart also tied the story to anti-discrimination ordinances regarding bathroom usage by transgender people: It is not clear if Lancaster has a bathroom ordinance like the one defeated in Houston last year where men would legally be allowed to enter womens bathrooms and locker rooms. Breitbart Texas Lana Shadwick covered the defeat of that ordinance in Houston. Pomare was not charged with any offenses related to being in the womens bathroom other than the illegal filming. On 12 April 2016, the web site Daily Headlines published the same story, citing Breitbart as a source, and inaccurately confusing using bathrooms with filming inside them: published A man from Palmdale, California, wearing a bra and dress enters the ladies bathroom at Macys and what happens next should not surprise you. The man, Jason Pomare, 33, entered the bathroom which the ACLU and the liberal elitists in this country say is his God given right. He sets up a hidden camera in one of the stalls and for the next two hours, tapes women using the bathroom. Eventually, one woman noticed the camera with the record light on and notified mall security, who arrested Pomare. There was absolutely no way for anyone to see this coming, was there? (Removes tongue from cheek) Although Breitbart provided a link to the source for their report, the site either didn't bother to check that source's date or deliberately misrepresented the incident in order to leverage more interest in it. The linked news articlefrom Los Angeles television station KNBC was clearly dated 13 May 2013 (not 2016, or "last weekend"): article    KNBC's 2013 reporting described an unambiguous violation of the law. The incident had nothing to do with bathroom ordinances, itinvolved unquestionablyillegal actions, and the individual identifiedwas arrested and charged: bathroom ordinances Charges were filed against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom. Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store. Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of sexual gratification. After his arrest, investigators said a video camera found in his purse had "hours" of video of women using the restroom inside the store. (Pomare's arrest was alsoreported by the Antelope Valley Times in May 2013.) reported  Neither Breitbart nor Daily Headlines updated their articles to note that the incident hadn't taken place in April 2016, and that the arrest occurred well prior to the passage of any prominent bathroom ordinances. And both sitesfailed to take into account that more recent non-discrimination ordinances haven't legalized filming bathroom occupants, no matter what their gender identity might be. non-discrimination ordinances Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for the purposes of sexual gratification, a charge that would alsobe applicable in any jurisdiction that permitted transgender individuals to use bathrooms aligned with their gender. Ordinances of that nature haveno provisions permittingthe surreptitious filming of bathroom occupants for personal sexual gratification (or any other reason), nor have such provisions been sought or suggested by anyone.  Dilworth, M.  "Palmdale Man Arrested for Videotaping in Women's Bathroom."
  The Antelope Valley Times.  14 May 2013. Klemack, John Cadiz and Jonathan Lloyd.   "Man Disguised as Woman Recorded "Hours" of Mall Restroom Video: Investigators."
    KNBC-TV [Los Angeles].   14 May 2013.
Dennis Kucinich became a lame-duck member of Congress after the 10th District he has represented since 1997 was redrawn out of existence and he lost a primary contest to another sitting Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, in the new Ohio 9th District.But Kucinich has not stopped working on the issues that have engaged him.He issued a news release and video on Nov. 2 supporting HR 4310, the bill he introduced to end the childhood obesity subsidy.Congress -- with your tax dollars -- subsidizes the marketing efforts of fast food and junk food companies by as much as $19 billion over 10 years, thereby subsidizing the childhood obesity epidemic, he said.Do fast food and junk food companies really enjoy an advertising subsidy? PolitiFact Ohio decided to dig in.Kucinich builds his case first by noting that childhood obesity -- which has more than tripled in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- has been linked to the influence of targeted marketing, though partial blame does lie with a more sedentary lifestyle and a worsening diet.He cites several prominent studies in support, with the most recent study coming from the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It says: Aggressive marketing of high-calorie foods to children and adolescents has been identified as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity. (Others with the same conclusion included the American Heart Association, the American Journal of Public Health and the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.) Kucinich's bill would prohibit any company from claiming a tax deduction for the expense of marketing that is directed at children to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality.Under current law, fast food marketers get the same break that other businesses do. The federal tax code allows companies to deduct reasonable and necessary expenses of marketing and advertising from their income taxes.How is that a subsidy?The way the federal funding system works, Kucinich said, is that if we give a tax break in one place, we need to replace that lost income from somewhere else, like with higher taxes from the rest of us. In other words, this tax break is a massive subsidy for the junk food and fast food industry.The question then is how much the deduction, or tax break, is worth.According to a report to Congress from the Federal Trade Commission, the most recent we could find, the fast food industry spent nearly $2 billion in 2006 on marketing and advertising specifically aimed at children. That would yield about $700 million in tax revenue at the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent.A report in the New England Journal of Medicine put the marketing budgets for kids' foods at $10 billion annually -- which would yield $3.5 billion in revenue.A study in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity said it It is unclear how much money is spent on food advertising specifically directed at children and adolescents, but put the total for advertising, youth-targeted promotions and public relations and packaging especially designed for children at $10.5 billion.The Economic Policy Institute estimated 10-year tax savings of $15 billion through legislation to end subsidies for junk and fast food advertising to children to promote health.Kucinich relied on Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimated on a very preliminary basis that his legislation could raise $15 billion to $19 billion in additional federal revenue over the 10-year budget period.That is as much as $19 billion, as Kucinich asserted, though the committee also noted that unsettled issues surrounding his bill would affect its impact and the revenue it would raise. Those issues primarily include defining fast food and determining what advertising is primarily directed at children.What's our take-home?PolitiFact examined Kucinich's legislation two years ago, when he made a statement about it that we found relied too firmly on a high-end estimate of its potential tax saving and implied a direct cash payout by taxpayers to the food industry. He chose his words more carefully this time.His assertion that the tax code provides a subsidy of as much as $19 billion needs additional information for clarification, but it is well supported.On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True. Many Americans believe that the economic recovery has only recently picked up steam. But one group that is widely seen as benefiting in recent years are investors in the stock market. This is a point that former Sen. James Webb, D-Va. -- a potential longshot candidate for president whos been taking an economic-populist approach -- made during an interview on ABCsThis Week. On the March 15, 2015, edition of the show, host George Stephanopoulos brought up a comment by Webb that powerful financial interests spending billions to elect people who think the current drift toward a permanent aristocracy is OK. Webb explained his thinking this way: If you see what has been happening to our country over the past 20 or 25 years or so, with the economic model -- first, the model itself has broken apart. ... The employment model that was based on full-time employment, manufacturing-based, taking care of your working people, (it) fell apart a lot, when the manufacturing sector itself was hurt so bad in the past 20 years. But the other thing is  if you have capital, if you have assets, you're doing pretty well. The stock market has almost tripled since April of 2009. If you don't -- and this is particularly true right now with the generation that is coming into full adulthood -- they don't have that model anymore. They are doing part-time jobs, consultancy jobs, they've got student loans to pay off. We wondered whether Webb was right that the stock market has almost tripled since April of 2009. So we looked back at the historical data. First, some background on the stock market. Companies that are publicly traded allow ownership shares to be sold on one of several stock exchanges. The values of a single share can rise or fall over time. Several different indexes are commonly used to measure the overall value of the market. We looked at four: the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is a smaller group of blue-chip stocks; the Standard & Poors 500, which offers a larger and broader mix of stocks; the NASDAQ Composite, which includes a lot of fast-growing technology stocks; and the Wilshire 5000, which includes the broadest list of publicly traded companies. The following table summarizes the growth of these three measurements between April 1, 2009, and today. Measure April 1, 2009 March 16, 2015 Increase (multiple) Dow Jones Industrial Average 7,762 17,977 2.3 times higher Standard & Poors 500 811 2,081 2.6 times higher NASDAQ Composite 1,552 4,930 3.2 times higher Wilshire 5000 8242 21949 2.7 times higher These numbers show that Webb is definitely right for the NASDAQ Composite (in fact, he underestimates a bit) and that hes just about on target for the S&P 500 and the Wilshire 5000 if you round the figures upwards. Webbs claim that the stock market almost tripled overshoots the increase for the Dow, which is 2.3 times higher now than in April 2009. Still, Lawrence J. White, an economist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business, warned that comparisons like Webbs are sensitive to the choice of start and end dates, among other issues. For example, if one takes the Dow Jones Industrial Average and instead makes the comparison with its previous high in 2007, the increase is only 25 percent -- not the more-than doubling that occurred from its low point in 2009, he said. And if one nets out inflation from that 25 percent increase, the 'real' increase in the stock market has been only about half of that increase. Our ruling Webb said that the stock market has almost tripled since April of 2009. There are different ways to measure the stock market. For three of the four most common yardsticks, Webb is basically right; for the other one, hes off base, but not dramatically so. And it's worth noting that the period Webb chose maximizes the increase; a longer time horizon makes the gain more modest. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars  billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge  we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Claim:  Photograph shows President Bush jogging with a serviceman who lost a leg in Afghanistan.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Attached is a picture of Mike McNaughton. He stepped on a landmine in Afghanistan Christmas 2002. President Bush came to visit the wounded in the hospital. He told Mike that when he could run a mile, that they would go on a run together.  to his word, he called Mike every month or so to see how he was doing. Well, last week they went on the run, 1 mile with the president. Not something you'll see in the news, but seeing the president taking the time to say thank you to the wounded and to give hope to one of my best friends was one of the greatest/best things I have seen in my life. It almost sounds like a corny email chain letter, but God bless him.   Origins:  On 9 January 2003, 31-year-old Staff Sergeant Mike McNaughton of Denham Springs, Louisiana, a member of the Louisiana Army National Guard, was serving with the 769th Engineer Battalion in Afghanistan, scouting for land mines.  Suddenly, according to Sgt. McNaughton, "I closed my eyes for a second going up in the air and  then landing on the ground, and that's when I just  I knew exactly what happened."  Sgt. McNaughton had stepped on an anti-personnel mine, and in the resulting blast he lost his right leg, as well as themiddle and ring fingers of his right hand and a chunk of his left leg.  Sgt. McNaughton was evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for immediate treatment and later flown to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., for follow-on care. In the months since his wounding, Sgt. McNaughton has undergone at least 11 separate operations as a result of his injuries and has been fitted with a thin, robotic prosthetic shaft to replace his right leg.  While recuperating at Walter Reed, Sgt. McNaughton was honored to receive a visit from President Bush.  One of the subjects of common interest they discussed was running, and the President extended an invitation to Sgt. McNaughton to come running with him once he was up and about.    The President's invitation posed something of a dilemma for Sgt. McNaughton: "He said give him a call and we'll go running.  How are you supposed to just call the president?" Fortunately,  Sgt. McNaughton's doctor at Walter Reed was also a doctor for the President, and the two men were able to keep in touch through her. In April 2004, Sgt. McNaughton and his family made the trip to Washington, and  true to his word  the President went for a run with him.  According to Baton Rouge television station WAFB, Sgt. McNaughton described his return visit with President Bush thusly: "It rained a little bit. I didn't care if it was storming or lightning all around, I didn't care. It was nice to run with him.  "He has a weight room upstairs, in the White House. We worked out for about 45 minutes, we tried different equipment. He said I couldn't do it, so I had to prove him wrong. "This goes back to my military training. I never once stopped something and said I can't do it or quit. Just because I lost my leg, why should I start now?" Sergeant McNaughton says the president was more interested with his new leg than even his own children. McNaughton says the president couldn't stop looking at it or asking questions about it. Additional information:        Wounded Guard Soldiers Visited   (The Army National Guard)   Last updated:  13 August 2007    Sources:   Marshall, Peter.  "P-769th Soldier."   WBRZ-TV [Baton Rouge].  5 August 2003.    WAFB-TV [Baton Rouge].  "Denham Springs Man Goes Jogging with the President."   23 April 2004. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In July 2020, social media users posted a meme that included a screenshot of an article excerpt that allegedly demonstrated hydroxychloroquine would be an effective "cure and vaccine" against COVID-19.  The claim stems from an opinion piece by Bryan Fischer, former director of the American Family Association, that interpreted a 2005 study on the utility of chloroquine to treat SARS as being relevant to COVID-19  a disease that did not exist at the time of that paper's publication. SARS (aka SARS-CoV, which caused epidemics in the early 2000s) and COVID-19 (aka SARS-CoV-2) are both caused by coronaviruses, but that does not mean that both could be treated with the same medication.  Similarly, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are related drugs, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Finally, the excerpted study was limited in scope and based on laboratory results. Fischer attempted to tie Dr. Anthony Fauci to the 2005 study by falsely alleging that it was published in a journal run by the U.S. agency Fauci heads.   Are SARS and COVID-19 the same? No. While SARS and COVID-19 are both coronaviruses, that does not mean these two diseases are interchangeable, nor that they can be treated with identical medicines. Hundreds of coronaviruses exist, most of which circulate among animals. These viruses occasionally jump to humans and cause diseases that range in severity. The common cold, for instance, which isn't particularly known for being lethal, can be caused by a coronavirus. On the other hand, COVID-19, which has caused more than 150,000 deaths in the United States (and close to 700,000 total deaths worldwide) as of this writing, is also caused by a coronavirus. Nobody would argue that a treatment for the common cold would be equally effective against COVID-19.  Hundreds of coronaviruses exist Fischer attempts to dismiss the fact that SARS and COVID-19 are two distinct diseases by arguing that they share a similar scientific name (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2) and 79% of the same genome. Saying that these two diseases share 79% of their genome sequence may make it sound like these diseases are nearly identical, but consider this: Humans share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees.  98% of our genome Are hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine the same thing? No. Although these drugs are similar (they are both derivatives of a 4-aminoquinoline [4AQ] nucleus), they aren't interchangeable. Chloroquine is primarily used to treat malaria, while hydroxychloroquine, which is considered less toxic than chloroquine, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and certain blood disorders.  CNN writes: writes Chloroquine is used to treat malaria, as well as in chemoprophylaxis, which is the administering of drugs to prevent the development of disease, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2006, it has not been recommended for use in severe malaria because of problems with resistance, particularly in the Oceania region, according to the World Health Organization. [...] Hydroxychloroquine is what's known as an analog of chloroquine, meaning the two have similar structures but different chemical and biological properties. The former is considered the less toxic derivative, according to studies.It's given to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and the blood disorder porphyria cutanea tarda, the CDC said. Did this study prove that chloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No. The 2005 article published in Virology Journal was based on a laboratory cell-culture experiment that used primate cells, not human cells. The authors noted at the time that more testing was needed before antivirals could be developed to treat the disease in humans: Virology Journal Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15]. Together with data presented here, showing virus inhibition in cell culture by chloroquine doses compatible with patient treatment, these features suggest that further evaluation of chloroquine in animal models of SARS-CoV infection would be warranted as we progress toward finding effective antivirals for prevention or treatment of the disease. It should also be noted that this was an in vitro study, meaning that it was conducted in a controlled environment, like a test tube, not inside a living organism. The Universal Health Network, a medical research organization in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted that in vitro models have a reputation of being "less translatable" to humans than other research methods: Universal Health Network A major drawback is their failure to capture the inherent complexity of organ systems. For example, in vitro models may not account for interactions between cells and biochemical processes that occur during turnover and metabolism. As a result, in vitro studies have developed a reputation for being less translatable to humans. More importantly, in the years since the SARS outbreak in 2002, chloroquine has not been widely used to treat the disease.  Did this study say that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No.  The 2005 paper in the Virology Journal never mentions hydroxychloroquine. Was Fauci or the NIH involved in this 2005 paper? No.  As mentioned earlier, the above-displayed screenshot shows an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Fischer, which was published on websites such as One News Now and the conspiratorial True Pundit, a site that traffics in misinformation.  One News Now True Pundit, misinformation Fischer's article is centered on a 2005 paper published in the Virology Journal entitled "Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread." Although this is a genuine article, it was not authored by Fauci. Fischer attempted to connect Fauci to this article by stating that the "Virology Journal [is] the official publication of Dr. Faucis National Institutes of Health [NIH]," but that simply isn't true. The Virology Journal is not an official publication of the NIH.  Virology Journal The Virology Journal is published by Biomed Central (BMC), part of the publishing group Springer Nature, an academic publishing company. Some government researchers were involved with this 2005 study (five of the eight listed authors were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the other three were from Clinical Research Institute of Montreal), but this study did not involve Fauci or anyone else from the NIH. Virology Journal Is hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for COVID-19? No.  As of this writing, hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.  effective treatment Hydroxychloroquine has been an effective treatment for other diseases, such as malaria, but studies have not found the drug to be useful in the fight against COVID-19. In June 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked "the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19," writing that a large, randomized clinical trial showed that the drug provided "no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery." Food and Drug Administration Universal Health Network.  "In vitro vs. In vivo: Is One Better?"
  Retreived 4 August 2020. McLaughlin, Eliott.  "Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: What to Know About the Potential Coronavirus Drugs."
  CNN.  24 March 2020. FDA.  "FDA Cautions Against Use of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for COVID-19 Outside of the Hospital Setting or a Clinical Trial Due to Risk of Heart Rhythm Problems."
  1 July 2020. Seley-Radtke, Katherine.  "Here's Why Hydroxychloroquine Doesn't Block The Coronavirus in Human Lung Cells."
  Science Alert.  1 August 2020. Duply, Beatrice.  "Chloroquine/SARS Study Doesnt Prove Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19."
  Associated Press.  31 July 2020. Niaid.nih.gov.  "Coronaviruses."
  Retrieved 4 August 2020. Silverman, Craig.  "Revealed: Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site True Pundit Is Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against The FBI."
  Buzzfeed. &nbs; 27 August 2018. Virology Journal.  "Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread'"   22 August 2005. True Pundit.  "COVER UP: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; "Nobody Needed to Die.'"
  5 May 2020. FACT CHECK: Are musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce attempting to buy up the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use?  Claim:  Musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce are attempting to buy the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use.    Origins: On 7 July 2015 the web site Newswatch33 published an article titled "Jay-Z and Beyonce Attempt to Buy Rights to Confederate Flag to Prevent Further Use," which reported that:  article According to Ralph Hammerstein, an attorney representing Shawn Jay-Z Carter and Beyonce Knowles-Carter, the couple is attempting to purchase rights to the Confederate flag to prevent further use of the flag on merchandise. According to Hammerstein, the couple is in the works of purchasing all resell rights to the confederate flag. My clients are adamant about purchasing the rights to the Rebel Confederate flag. They have expressed deep concern regarding the flag and how it is tearing apart our nation. Mr. and Mrs. Carter wants to assist in the abolishment of the flag by purchasing the resell rights to the Confederate flag. If my clients are successful, purchasing the rights would mean that anyone who wants to produce merchandise using the Confederate flag would have to get permission from Mr. and Mrs. Carter. My clients have expressed that they are not looking to profit from the use of the flag but rather prevent any further use of the flag on merchandise, according to Hammerstein. This story was nothing more than yet another bit of fake news from NewsWatch33, a web site that emerged on social media just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site was shuttered (possibly as part of a plot to skirt Facebook's crackdown on fake news articles). Before publishing the above-linked article, the site agitated Facebook and Twitter users by fabricating tales about a white supremacist group that supposedly raised $4 million for the defense of Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof and about a girl who was supposedly electrocuted by iPhone ear buds. NewsWatch28 crackdown $4 million electrocuted This story echoed other (fictional) urban legends about prominent entertainment figures attempting to buy up the rights to cultural symbols associated with racism in order the keep them out of the public view, such as one about comedian Bill Cosby's supposedly having purchased the rights to the Our Gang/Little Rascals film shorts, or CNN founder Ted Turner's allegedly having snared the rights to The Dukes of Hazzard television series  both with the intent of withholding them from any future broadcasting airings. Our Gang/Little Rascals In this case, however, the rights to the symbol in question could not be bought up by any party, as no one holds a legitimate trademark to the design of the Confederate flag. trademark Last updated:  8July 2015 Originally published: 8July 2015 The scene appeared to be dramatic. A picture showed a crashed UFO, perhaps an alien spacecraft, surrounded by military and government officials. The craft resembled the shape of a flying saucer. It appeared in an online advertisement:   The ad read: "[Gallery] 40+ Wild Photos That the Government Has Declassified." Readers who clicked the ad were led to a slideshow article on the Daily Forest website. The story lasted 80 pages. slideshow article The picture from the ad did not show up in the lengthy article. It was nothing more than a still frame from 2016's "The X-Files: The Event Series." A video from 20th Century Studios documented the creation of the alien UFO crash: video  The headline on Daily Forest read: "Check Out These Fascinating Government Classified Photos." However, the article appeared to contain nothing but interesting photographs. None of them appeared to have been classified or declassified in the past. For example, one of the pictures showed NASA astronauts practicing a water landing. Its caption read: "In June 1966, the Apollo 1 crew practices water egress procedures with a full-scale boilerplate model of the spacecraft": showed water landing  Photo via NASA  The list also featured a publicly available picture from 2015. It depicted a radio telescope under construction in China: featured  Photo by Visual China Group via Getty Images  A third example from the lengthy article was a photograph of the late U.S. Sen. John McCain. It showed the moment he was captured during the Vietnam War on Oct. 26, 1967. At the time, he was known as Lt. Cmdr. John McCain III: photograph  Senator John McCain is pulled out of a Hanoi lake by North Vietnamese Army soldiers and civilians on October 26, 1967.(Photo By Getty Images)  The picture had not been classified. In fact, the Los Angeles Times printed the photograph just two days after he was captured. printed the photograph In sum, the ad that claimed to lead to "40+ Wild Photos That the Government Has Declassified" was nothing more than clickbait. The story lasted 80 pages and the photographs hadn't been classified or declassified. Further, the article didn't explain the alien UFO crash picture that readers clicked in the first place. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 Editor's Note: On Dec. 22, 2021, Charles Lieber was convicted of making false statements to federal authorities about his involvement with the Chinese government and for failing to report foreign financial accounts to the IRS. You can read more about Lieber's case here. The original story continues below.  read more about Lieber's case here On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. arrested Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon.  wild speculation unfounded connections         A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: post In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological Research laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese Students working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of "Sensitive Biological Samples" according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? Its located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the Coronaviruswhich is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent.  Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a "strategic scientist" at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: DOJ Chinas Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of Chinas scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Liebers three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT "not less than nine months a year" by "declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of" WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he wasnt sure how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and Chinas Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber had no formal association with WUT after 2012, that WUT continued to falsely exaggerate his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber is not and has never been a participant in Chinas Thousand Talents Plan. In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related.  On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China.  announced Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Bostons Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the Peoples Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a "student" on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.  In short: Cancer cells.  As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of "biological research" were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: The New York Times Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid  cancer cells  that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleagues research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion.  While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. debunked Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution. stated Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: The Washington Post Theres absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered, said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded. Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is highly unlikely the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. We dont have any evidence for that, said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. Its a skip in logic to say its a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed, Narang said In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence.  Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with "economic espionage" and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: statement Chinas goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the worlds leading superpower, and theyre breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call non-traditional collectors such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the Peoples Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. Cookson, Clive.  "Coronavirus Was Not Genetically Engineered in a Wuhan lab, Says Expert."
  Financial Times.  13 February 2020. Stevenson, Alexandra.  "Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins."
  The New York Times.  17 February 2020. U.S. Department of Justice.  "Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases."
  28 January 2020. Shaw, Jonathan.  "Stolen Research: Chinese Scientist Is Accused of Smuggling Lab Samples."
  Harvard Magazine.  28 January 2020. Barry, Ellen.  "Stolen Research: Chinese Scientist Is Accused of Smuggling Lab Samples."
  The New York Times.  31 December 2020. Barry, Ellen.  "U.S. Accuses Harvard Scientist of Concealing Chinese Funding."
  The New York Times.  28 January 2020. Updated [22 December 2021]: Editor's note added after Lieber was convicted of making false statements to federal authorities about his involvement with the Chinese government and for failing to report foreign financial accounts to the IRS. Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. '