'Clear Button' Fraud
Claim:  Gasoline purchasers who fail to press the "Clear" button on gas pumps after refueling risk additional charges appearing on their credit/debit cards.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2008] Jim just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers.  She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most of us do). She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2 $50 charges added in addition to her purchase. Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas!  To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them!  [Collected via e-mail, February 2010] A friend just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers. She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most ofus do).She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2  $50.00 charges added in addition to her purchase.  Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas! To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them. I had never noticed the clear button but I gotgas the other day and sure enough it is there.  I shall be using it from now on. Origins:  This heads-up about pressing the 'clear' button after purchasing gasoline at a pump using a credit or debit card began appearing in inboxes in early May 2008.  Those in the know say there's nothing to this notion that pressing the 'clear' button after refueling will safeguard the pump's user from having his credit card accessed by future users, or indeed, have any other effect. As W. Michael Hardin, an employee of Dresser Wayne, a manufacturer of gas station fuel dispensing units, says: "If a fuel dispenser is operating in its normal mode, the way it was designed to work, your transaction is complete as soon as you hang  up the nozzle.  There is no need to do anything else at that point or press any buttons.  If for some reason you hang up the nozzle incorrectly, and the transaction does not complete, a receipt will not be printed, which would be an indication that something is wrong."   In other words, a properly functioning gas pump will conclude its transaction when its nozzle is returned to its cradle. There is no magic to be had from pressing the 'clear' button: a gas pump that is working the way it should will have already closed the transaction by that point, and a misfunctioning one isn't going to be prompted into righting itself by your mashing the 'clear' button a few times.  Look instead to your receipt. That the pump dispensed one after you recradled the gas nozzle is a sign that all went well. If a receipt does not present itself, a trip inside the gas station to discuss the matter with the clerk on duty is in order. Some have been taken in by the false alert, such as the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office which was moved to post the warning on its web site. (That office did subsequently post a retraction which set the matter straight.) retraction While some dishonest gas station employees have run additional charges through customers' credit and debit cards, this form of crime is usually a matter of the miscreants' charging some cards two or more times to cover for other fuel purchases paid in cash (which was pocketed by the thieving employees, with the false charges laid against the credit or debit cards of victims used to account for the decrease in the station's fuel inventory). In May 2008, two employees of a gas station in Hopatcong, New Jersey, were caught and charged with theft for attempting to run such a scheme. However, a far more likely threat to the sanctity of one's credit or debit card at a gas station is posed by those who, during the process of refueling their own vehicles, surreptitiously affix 'skimmers' to card-reading mechanisms at gas pumps. (Skimmers collect data from the magnetic strips of cards, information which is later copied to counterfeit cards and used to empty bank accounts or to run up charges against credit accounts.) After installing the skimmers, the thieves quietly withdraw and return later to retrieve their data-enriched devices. Should you discover you've been the victim of any sort of credit or debit card fraud, contact your bank immediately.  The sooner you can get in touch with them, and the more information you can provide about where you used the now-compromised card, the better. Regarding debit cards, keep in mind that they do not afford users the same level of protection against fraud that credit cards do. As a general precaution, make it your practice to examine your checking account history and balance several times a month rather than waiting for a statement to arrive in the mail. Report lost cards or suspected unauthorized use immediately. (Generally, the faster you report an incorrect or fraudulent charge, the less you will be liable for.)  Consider using credit cards instead of debit cards whenever possible because it is often easier to get unauthorized charges reversed from such instruments. Also, having the problem isolated to your credit card rather than your debit card means not having to deal with the headache of bounced checks during the time it takes to get the matter straightened out. Barbara "credit where credit's due" Mikkelson Last updated:   19 June 2014    Moszczynski, Joe.  "Four More Step Up in Gas Station Credit Scam."   The [Newark] Star-Ledger.  15 May 2008  (p. 41).
Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pitched herself as someone who will continue many of President Barack Obamas policies. At a campaign rally inKentucky May 16, Clinton praised the 2009 auto industry bailout, whichpeople view as an Obama success. We saved the auto industry, she said. Thats important in Louisville. Its important in Bowling Green. Its important in Northern Kentucky. Its important across this commonwealth. Thats a big difference between me and my opponent in the primary. I voted to save the auto industry, he voted not to. Its important to know that it was the right vote because we just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history. Weve alreadylooked into howClintons primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, voted on the auto bailout, which totaled an estimated$85 billion. But we were also curious about Clintons claim that 2015 was the best year for the auto industry in America in history. This is true by one big measure: Americans bought more cars and trucks in 2015 than ever before. But that success might mask long-term issues with American manufacturers, especially given foreign manufacturers growing market share. In 2015, Americans bought more than 17.5 million cars. The last peak was 17.3 million in 2000, followed by a collapse to 10.4 million at the height of the recession in 2009. Additionally, the past six years have been the longest period of sustained year-over-year growth in auto sales since the 1920s, according toAuto Alliance, a vehicle manufacturer association. Vehicle sales wax and wane with the economy.Wards Auto, an analytics organization, has tracked vehicle sales since 1963. When times are tough, vehicles become a discretionary purchase that consumers are willing to put off.Analysts believecar sales have done so well in the past couple of years because of a combination of the improving economy, cheap gas prices, available credit and low interest rates for loans. Experts we asked agreed with Clintons claim, saying the sales figures are a reasonable way to measure the auto industrys health. She's right, said Bruce Belzowski, managing director of the automotive futures group at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. By any objective measure, the auto industry bailout is an Obama success story. The Detroit Three big automakers  Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler reported strong salesin 2015 and projections for 2016. But its worth remembering that the record-breaking total vehicle sales figure isnt just for American-made cars.It includes foreign models sold in the United States, too. Of the 2.4 million cars sold so far in 2016, 71 percent were imports, according to theWall Street Journal. David Lewis, a professor emeritus of business history at the University of Michigan, compared 2015 to the golden age of the American car industry. Think of 1955, a record sales year, and a time in which well over 90 percent of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were manufactured by American companies, Lewis said. Even taking into account the number of foreign versus American car purchases, Clintons claim is reasonable because foreign car sales count as part of the auto industry, said Clifford Winston, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Foreign cars have been a growing part of the U.S. auto market since the 1980s. But it might not be fair to take her claim as proof of the long-term health of American manufacturers, Winston said. While the bailout resurrected struggling American auto manufacturers, its possible that it just stalled the companies eventual decline as consumers choose foreign cars instead. He also noted potential future threats from ride-sharing services and self-driving cars. Let us not get too excited about one or even a few years of successes with this industry that has been extremely turbulent and repeatedly rescued by the government, Winston said. All the while, the Detroit share has gone down. So that tells you something that any given year still may mask long-term issues. This is partially reflected in employment data. Employment among car dealers has in fact returned to its pre-recession high of about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But employment in the motor vehicle and parts manufacturing sector hasnt completely recovered. About 1.3 million people worked in this sector in the early 2000s; that figure dropped to about 620,000 at the height of the recession in 2009, and it has risen to about 920,000 in early 2016. But for the factories that made it out of the recession, all is well, Belzowski said. U.S. vehicle production in 2015 was the eighth-largest in history, at 11.9 million. Thats high  and almost double production in 2009  but still not quite as high as it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some industry analystsexpect the good times to keep coming for the next few years, with 2016 breaking more records, according to theDetroit Free Press. Its a great time to be in the automobile business, and its particularly sweet for those who lived through the dark days of 2009 and 2010, said IHS Automotive analyst Tom Libby. Our ruling Clinton said, We just had the best year for the auto industry in America in history. With sales figures that exceed the pre-recession high, 2015 was a great year for the auto industry, including American manufacturers. This high point should be taken with a grain of salt because it might mask long-term issues with American manufacturers, especially given foreign manufacturers growing market share. Clintons statement is nearly accurate but requires that extra bit of context, so we rate it Mostly True. Rob Portman makes a unique bogeyman for his opponent : Hes a Republican who not only supported foreign trade policies, which his foes blame for Ohio job losses, but he also personally advised a president on expanding trade. He  personifies the policy.Yet Portman, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, has a uniquely good comeback.He says that while many companies have survived thanks to the export opportunities of foreign trade, Ohio lost lots of other jobs to other states on the watch of his opponent, Lee Fisher -- the irony being that Fisher, a Democrat  and Ohios lieutenant governor, was also Ohios development director, in charge of bringing new jobs to the state.Its a blame game with resumes perfectly tailored for the respective attacks. But whos more to blame for Ohios job losses? The guy who promoted trade with China and Mexico and saw jobs cross those borders? Or the guy who as Ohio development director saw too much development cross state borders, not international ones? Portman, appearing with Fisher before The Plain Dealer editorial board on Sept. 14, said that if you want to compare the validity of these opposing claims, data from the state backs up his: more jobs went to other states than went abroad.It may surprise you to learn that when you look at the states own data in terms of job loss, that almost nine out of 10 jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries, Portman said, referring to Fisher and Gov. Ted Strickland. Think about that. So companies have left Cleveland to go to Indiana. Companies have left Cleveland to go across the border to Michigan. And yet its easy in a campaign to fan the flames of protectionism and to claim that the jobs went to Mexico or Canada or, more likely, China.We asked about that data, went to thestates websiteto see for ourselves, and laid it out in an Excel file. What we saw, however, were alternate versions of the same reality -- one that supports Portman and yet simultaneously presents as many holes as aged Emmental cheese.So before we put this to the Truth-O-Meter, let us show you the numbers, starting with Portmans view of them.The states own data comes from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, or ODJFS. In concert with the U.S. Department of Labor, ODJFS publishes quarterly reports of Mass Layoff Events, based on surveys of companies with 50 or more initial unemployment claims filed within a five-week period. The surveys, conducted by telephone, ask why the layoffs occurred and whether they were associated with jobs being moved from one place to another. If so, the survey asks where these jobs went: Somewhere else in Ohio? Some other state? Some other country?Reviewing these quarterly reports, we found missing numbers and an error the state had made. After we discussed this with ODJFS, the agency went back and updated one quarterly set of numbers. That changed the outcome of the tally, but only slightly. Because Portman relied on the old data, we will still use the old data to evaluate his claim.From January 2007 through March of 2010, 842 jobs were lost in Ohio because companies moved operations overseas, the old reports showed. Thats a small number compared with the 5,215 jobs lost in Ohio because companies moved their operations to other states, as the state data showed.Put another way, it means that of the jobs that left Ohio, only 13.9 percent went overseas -- and 86 percent went to other states. Now consider Portmans words: The states own data shows that almost nine out of ten jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries.Eighty-six percent is close enough to nine out of ten. So Portman is right -- yes?Well, yes -- except for the caveats. Lets start with those from the state. ODJFS quarterly  reports note that employers with fewer than 50 workers are not part of the surveys, so these numbers do not include small companies. That exclusion partly explains why the total number of lost jobs counted in these Ohio quarterly reports -- 264,016 since January 2007,  including the vast majority that had little to do with the movement of work -- is lower than youll see in other reports of job losses.Then theres the U.S. Department of Labor, whose Bureau of Labor Statistics sets the survey standards and points out that movement of work is defined as work that will be performed by a company or for a company in a new location. Movement is easy to report when a company shutters one plant and reopens another, whether in Juarez, Mexico, or Kokomo, Ind. The definition also applies if a company signs a contract to have its widgets manufactured in Shanghai, China. These are hypothetical examples, because the state reports do not give  the exact place of relocation. But if a large company with a big supply chain starts using a widget supplier in Mexico and stops buying from a supplier in Ohio, and that Ohio supplier loses so much revenue that it shuts down, those lost jobs are not counted in the movement of work column. Those jobs, then, do not wind up in Portmans comparison.Thats the biggest problem. We asked Policy Matters Ohio, a think tank, for itslatest report on trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, a federal assistance program for workers displaced because of foreign trade. In 2009, 20,677 Ohio workers were deemed potentially eligible for the program, and 9,455 more were in 2008, according to TAA certification reports reviewed by Policy Matters. That suggests that job losses from trade were massively higher than those attributable to companies moving out of state.But some of those workers eligible for TAA wound up keeping their jobs or getting rehired, such as when General Motors Lordstown plant began rehiring. Others found work elsewhere; a precise number does not exist, which presents a problem for all of these comparisons. Everyone is talking about fruit, but theyre often comparing apples with persimmons.PolitiFact Ohio has previously examined claims by Strickland and Fisher that trade deals cost specific numbers of job losses in Ohio. We have found trend lines that appear believable, but the reports and statistics the officials cite rely on extrapolations or suppositions. Someday the comparative data may exist; until then, each side in this debate simply argues a point that sounds as if it could be true -- and certainly rings true to those affected -- but that lacks the accuracy that advocates suggest when they trot out their numbers.So we return to Portmans claim. Portmans spokeswoman, Jessica Towhey, says the candidate made clear that he was referring solely to state data and the movement of jobs out of state, compared with those moved out of the country, when he said that nine out of 10 jobs lost in Ohio went to other states, not other countries. In such a narrow construct, Portmans statement might be considered accurate but there is more to this picture. Here are the numbers as updated: From Jan. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010, Ohio lost 4,820 jobs due to company moves out of state (not the 5,215 in the reports that existed when Portman viewed them). It lost 1,125 more when companies closed operations in one part of the state but relocated elsewhere in Ohio. And it lost 842 jobs when companies moved operations abroad.This is out of 264,016 jobs counted as lost altogether in this particular series of reports -- reports that ODJFS spokesman Ben Johnson say capture just a subset of all layoffs.When a statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, the Truth-O-Meter says it is mostly true. Thats how we find Portmans claim: accurate in a narrow context but needing clarification, and so, Mostly True. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True. In early August 2020, Snopes readers asked whether the following meme shared across social media accurately quoted U.S. President Donald Trump's commenting on the United States Postal Service and voting by mail:   This quote appears to be a fabricated one. Although the meme's text states that Trump made the remark on a talk radio show hosted by Fox News personality Sean Hannity on July 30, 2020, Trump wasn't a guest on  Hannity's AM radio talk show  that day. Hannity's AM radio talk show  It's true that Trump has repeatedly disparaged mail-in voting, falsely stating  that voting by mail leads to rampant election fraud (except in Florida). He even appeared to suggest in a tweet, which prompted widespread backlash, that the November 2020 election should be delayed because the widespread use of mail-in ballots during the ongoing pandemic would compromise the results. falsely stating  Florida tweet widespread backlash Some concern has also been expressed that Trump has reduced the effectiveness of the Postal Service with budget cuts, as The New York Times reported: "Fueled by animus for Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and surrounded by advisers who have long called for privatizing the post office, Mr. Trump and his appointees have begun taking cost-cutting steps that appear to have led to slower and less reliable delivery." reduced However, we found no evidence that Trump made the remark in the above-displayed meme. It wasn't posted to his Twitter account or recorded in any statements transcribed by the White House. And Trump was not a guest on the Hannity show on July 30, 2020, so he didn't make the remark there, as suggested by the meme.   These words appear to be someone else's paraphrase of what they assumed Trump was thinking or planning. posted We therefore rate this claim  Lee, Jessica.  "Do Mail-In Ballots Increase Risk of Voter Fraud?"
  Snopes.com.  26 May 2020. Welna, David.  "Citing Election Delay Tweet, Influential Trump Ally Now Demands His Re-Impeachment."
  NPR.  31 July 2020. Shear, Michael D. et al.  "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal System Ahead of Voting."
  The New York Times.  31 July 2020. Freking, Kevin.  "Trump Encourages Mail Voting in Florida But Sues in Nevada."
  The Associated Press.  5 August 2020. Claim:  Facebook is donating $1 per share to a medical fund for a baby born with his heart outside his body.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Photo looks unreal, says "Fb" will donate $1 for each share of photo showing baby born with heart outside of its body.  Origins:  In April 2015, an image urging viewers to share a photograph of a baby born with his heart outside his body in order raise funds for his medical care was circulated widely via Facebook. But neither the image nor its claim was new; the tandem was simply a reiteration of a hoax that had circulated more than a year earlier involving the same photograph and plea. This "raise money for a child's medical care by sharing this photo on Facebook" format of hoax is common: Previous variations include a child purportedly shot  by a family member, a toddler who needed shot a heart transplant, and a little girl from Poland in desperate need of money for burn treatment. heart transplant burn treatment As is often the case with these popular social media hoaxes, the image used was one of a real child suffering a real medical condition, and that image was deliberately selected with the intent of tugging at the heartstrings of Facebook users for purposes unconnected to the depicted child's recovery or well being. The photograph used in this case is one that was widely reproduced in conjunction with 2012 news coverage about the case of Hayes Davis, who was born with omphalocele, a birth defect in which the fetus' intestines and other abdominal organs stick out from the belly button: news coverage After a pregnancy with seemingly endless appointments and ultrasounds, [Kelly] Davis gave birth to Hayes March 25, 2011, via Cesarean section at Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Tx. "I was so excited to meet him, but the anxiety was almost overwhelming," the new mom said. "I didn't know if he would breathe on his own or eat on his own or whether the omphalocele would stay intact." In January 2012, doctors successfully corrected Davis' condition: After his mom spent months treating the condition and even documenting her world on her blog, "O Baby," Hayes underwent surgery to correct the organs. "The surgery went perfectly," Davis said. "Both surgeons were incredibly pleased. We're looking forward to a simpler way of life." Images such as the one of the "baby born with his heart outside his body" are carefully selected by Facebook scammers preying on the sympathies of social media users.Many folks believe that sharing the image is harmless: If the claim is true, the baby is helped; and if it's false, only a small amount of their time was wasted. But these types of hoaxes are typically lures for the distribution of malware as well as clickjacking, clickbaiting, and like-farming activities, made all the more reprehensible for their dishonest and unauthorized use of such photographs. In any case, Facebook does not directly donate money based upon likes or shares generated for any purpose. Facebook's advice for charitable giving on the social network can be found here. here Last updated:  21 April 2015 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. Amid talk of alternative facts and a post-truth world that dominated the news directly after the inauguration of President Donald Trump on 20 January 2017, a quote from astrophysicist and science communicator Carl Sagan emerged as a viral meme:  This is the excerpt from the passage containing that quote which was shared most frequently: excerpt Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my childrens or grandchildrens time  when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and whats true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. This excerpt was taken from Sagans 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In a May 1997 review of that work, Smithsonian magazine described Sagan's motivation for writing it: "In The Demon-Haunted World, the late astronomer Carl Sagan writes in defense of science and reason in a world he sees as darkened by ignorance, superstition, pseudoscience, deceitful advertising and mindless television." review Sagan, for his part, described the book as "a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science." described The discussion of a loss of manufacturing jobs, an inability for public officials to grasp issues, and increasing distrust in science led many to assert that Sagan was predicting our current political and scientific climate  although, as Matt Novak articulated in a piece for Gizmodo, its often easy to view predictions of the future in a way that biases one's reading of the them: articulated Now, its important to remember that the accuracy of predictions is often a Rorschach test. An interpretation of a particular predictions accuracy usually says a lot about the people interpreting them and their own hopes or fears for the future. And honestly, some of Sagans concerns sound rather quaint. If you continue reading, the chapter goes on to talk about how the most popular videocassette rental was Dumb and Dumber, and how Beavis and Butthead was incredibly popular on TV. This, of course, was 1995, but theres not much new to this way of thinking  each generation thinks that the next generations media is toxic and vapid and worthless. Relevancy of the movie Dumb and Dumber notwithstanding, themes regarding the erosion of trust in favor of one's own deeply entrenched views appear repeatedly in the book. For example: One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Whether or not 2017 was the fulfillment of a Carl Sagan nightmare is a subjective matter, but the proffered description of that nightmare was authentic. Sagan, Carl.  The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
  Random House, 1995.  ISBN 0-345-40946-9. Trachtman, Paul.  Review of 'The Demon-Haunted World', 'Einstein, History, and Other Passions', 'The End of Science.
  Smithsonian.  May 1997. Novak, Matt.  Yes, The Eerie Carl Sagan Prediction That's Going Viral Is Real. 
  Paleofuture.  23 January 2017.