Are Facebook Users Secretly Following You?
In early January 2017 a rumor swept Facebook asserting that "Facebook security" people were being paid to watch individual accounts:  According to that rumor, entering the term "Facebook Security" into Facebook's "block users" field would reveal a list of people whom the social network had engaged to furtively monitor your activity, and each of whom had to be individually blocked by you to prevent them from spying on you: rumor [D]id you know there are people literally watching your Facebook account? Yes. There are people who have a specific duty to monitor your posts and activity. While there are many Facebook secrets, for those who enjoy privacy, this one is for you! Here is what you need to do to block the majority of the accounts that monitor your Facebook: 1. > Log into Facebook 2. > Account Settings 3. > Click on blocking 4. > In the search field where it says Block Users type in: Facebook Security 5. > A new window will pop up. The list you see is a list of [most likely] Facebook employees, spies, and private accounts that are paid to shill for who knows who (sarcasm (kind of)). 6. > Go down the list, and if you dont like being monitored, just hit the block button. Some of the accounts are unable to be blocked. While this is somewhat disturbing, you must remember that Facebook owns everything Facebook, so in essence, you agreed to be monitored. (I know. What moral and reasonable organization needs to hire people to monitor you? Right?) However, following these instructions does nothing to uncover or block the (non-existent) Facebook security personnel who are supposedly monitoring your online activities. Entering the term "Facebook Security" into "Block Users" search box simply returns "profiles of [users] who have used those particular words somewhere on their profile [or] in a place thats visible to the individual, as in a public post." The list returned by this search neither includes people who are furtively following you, nor persons employed to spy on you by Facebook security. In September 2017, this rumor took on a slightly new form (one which eliminated the paranoid reference to "Facebook security"): Again, following these instructions simply produces a list of Facebook users with the string 'Me' somewhere in their screen names or profiles, not a list of accounts of people who are secretly following you:
Claim:  Analysis demonstrates the "Cash for Clunkers" program's gasoline savings to be an inefficient economic trade-off. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2009]     I guess I must be on the wrong page... A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles  so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about  of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!! Origins:  In 2009, the federal government's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers," provided consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 discounts for trading in older model automobiles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient vehicles.  The analysis presented above maintains that the CARS program essentially spent $3 billion in federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds in order to save $350 million in (foreign) oil purchases, an inefficient economic trade-off.   The premise that the sole purpose or benefit of the CARS program is to save money on U.S. expenditures is a rather specious one to begin with.  And even within that framework,the analysis is flawed in key aspects. According to the latest CARS statistics,  auto dealers conducted 690,114 transactions through the program, and cars traded in through the program averaged 15.8 MPG, while new vehicles purchased through the program averaged 24.9 MPG.  Assuming, as stated above, that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year, we arrive at the following calculations: statistics A vehicle averaging 15.8 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 759.5 gallons of gasoline per year. A vehicle averaging 24.9 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 482 gallons of gasoline per year. The average CARS transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 277.5 gallons of gasoline per car per year. The 690,114 vehicles sold through the CARS program will therefore save a total of 191.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. So far, so good  our figures make the CARS program look even less economically efficient than the original analysis does.  The fatal flaw comes in the next step, however. The example presented above claims that 224 million gallons of gasoline are the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil (i.e., one barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline), which is an erroneous assumption.  One barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons of crude oil, not 42 gallons of gasoline  the crude has to be put through a refining process before it becomes gasoline. How much gasoline is produced from one barrel of crude varies according to the refining process used and the type of crude oil involved, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. refineries produce between 19 and 20 gallons of motor gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil." (Crude oil contains many different types of hydrocarbons, not all of which can easily be converted to gasoline, so other petroleum products such as kerosene and lubricating oil are also produced during the refining process.) EIA hydrocarbons If we take the mid-point of that range (i.e., 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil) and multiply it by the $75 per barrel price quoted in the example, we find: 191.5 million gallons of gasoline / 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil = 9.8 million barrels of oil 9.8 million * $75 per barrel  = $735 million This savings of $735 million per year is over twice the $350 million figure posited in the original analysis.  (The latter figure should actually be $375 million; the original contains a mathematical error in stating that 5 million multiplied by 75 equals 350.)  Moreover, the gasoline-saving benefits produced by the CARS program won't simply dissipate after the passage of a single year, as suggested above.  According to the  CARS stats, the total dollar value of transactions conducted under the "Cash for Clunkers" program was about $2.9 billion. Therefore (if all other factors remained the same), the full cost of the CARS program would be offset by gasoline savings in about four years  not a spectacular trade-off, perhaps, but not nearly as bad a one as claimed in the original analysis.  (All of these figures assume the price of gasoline to be a constant, a dubious proposition since the cost of oil can fluctuate quite widely, especially in the short term.) The original analysis also focuses solely on savings in gasoline costs and doesn't take into account other intended or residual effects of the CARS program, such as the economic benefits of boosting auto sales, reducing pollution by replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing safety by replacing older cars with vehicles offering advanced safety features, and providing additional parts and raw materials for the market: [The clunkers'] components and frames ... have begun flooding the used parts and scrap-recycling markets with more than 100 million tons of steel, batteries, and tires, among other things. "This is like a second wave of stimulus to our economy," said Bill Goodale, general manager of Millis Industries, which has picked up about 200 clunkers from local dealers and expects to take possession of hundreds more in the next few weeks. "As it trickles down, it helps junkyards. It helps the guy looking for cheap parts to keep his car going. It adds a lot of steel to a market that hasn't produced much of it in the last year." Last updated:  13 September 2009 On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare "martial law"  the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. faced deadly Capitol Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: other platforms I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently  and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days  we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government "are going to be brought down" in some "house cleaning" and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. supposedly stop "It's the president's last effort," McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. "We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country." 2020 presidential election the Capitol insurrection   In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. use military force First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases  people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities  such as those provided in the Insurrection Act  give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. Insurrection Act like in Hawaii during World War II The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: said It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Insurrection Act encouraged Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. warned But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim Among the many vexing problems with which the world continues to grapple is the issue of child marriage, a matter that predominantly affects girls in less developed countries. As the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) notes, 20 percent of girls worldwide are married before reaching the age of 18, and in some parts of the globe the rate is twice as high: UNFPA Child marriage denies girls the right to choose whom and when to marry -- one of lifes most important decisions. Choosing one's partner is a major decision, one that should be made freely and without fear or coercion. On this, virtually all countries agree. Child marriage is a human rights violation. Despite laws against it, the practice remains widespread: Globally, one in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18. In the least developed countries, that number doubles  40 per cent of girls are married before age 18, and 12 per cent of girls are married before age 15. Child marriage directly threatens girls health and well-being. Marriage is often followed by pregnancy, even if a girl is not yet physically or mentally ready. In developing countries, nine out of 10 births to adolescent girls occur within a marriage or a union. In these countries, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among adolescent girls aged 15 to 19. Girls who are married may also be exposed to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. When girls marry, they are often forced to drop out of school so they can assume household responsibilities. This is a denial of their right to an education. Girls who leave school have worse health and economic outcomes than those who stay in school, and eventually their children fare worse as well. Unfortunately, social media platforms are full of inaccurate postings on the subject from persons who are not seeking to raise awareness of the child marriage issue, but simply to demonize other religions and cultures. The following is one such example of this phenomenon:  To all you misguided, uninformed liberal women demonstrating in favor of embracing Islam, this young lady is being sold into sexual slavery as a child bride. She is a Christian. She watched her father beheaded and her mother raped. Where is her safe place? the meme asks. However, the blonde girl pictured here was not being sold into sexual slavery as a child bride by Muslims (or anyone else), and no credible reports (outside of the inflammatory meme itself) suggested she was a Christian who had seen her "father beheaded and her mother raped." The image used in the meme originated with a (no longer available) video from 2013 that captured a 7-year-old girl participating in a Quran recital competition, as noted in a Morocco World News article: article The picture shows an ISIS member, seemingly in his thirties, with a seven-year-old, crying girl, who had been interpreted as his bride. The photo sparked widespread condemnation on social media before a video on YouTube proved it to be a hoax. The picture generated several theories. The most popular theory [was] that the young girl had been converted to Islam before being forced to marry the ISIS member appearing in the picture .. The website Arabic Canada solved the mystery surrounding the outrageous picture, by sharing a video of what seems to be a Quran recital competition -- from which the picture was taken -- organized by ISIS in Klassa, a neighborhood in Aleppo, in 2013. The video shows the ISIS member, who was misleadingly presented as the young girls groom, having a small chat with her before she recites verses of the Quran. Feeling embarrassed for making several mistakes during her recitation, Ghada, the young girl, starts crying before the man returns. He then clearly tries to comfort her and boost her spirits. The referenced Arabic Canada website (now defunct) wrote of this picture as follows (roughly translated from Arabic): wrote A seven-year-old girl looks very frightened, while the man standing next to her looks smiling and happy. The text accompanying the photograph claims that the man in the picture forced the girl to marry him. Some versions even went so far as to identify the girl as a Christian who had been forced to convert to Islam and read the Quran. Of course, the picture produced a feeling of disgust in everyone who saw it. Some newspapers wrote articles denouncing the phenomenon of child marriage in Islam. One newspaper of course took the opportunity to refer to the marriage of six-year-old Aisha [the third wife of the prophet Muhammad] and claimed that Islam permitted and encouraged child marriage. third wife The photo is actually a screenshot from a video of a children's recitation contest held in Aleppo in September 2013, and although the organizers of the contest certainly belong to ISIS, the video includes no reference to marriage. The dismay on the girl's face was apparently triggered by her having made a mistake in reciting the Quran. Other screenshots from the video captured the girl looking considerably less distraught:    This isn't to say that child marriage isn't a real problem, or that it and other depredations  such as beheadings and rape  haven't been perpetrated by those associated with ISIS, but the image used in this meme isn't representative of any of those issues. Morocco World News.  "Truth Behind Alleged Marriage of ISIS Member with 7-Year-Old Girl."
  18 August 2014. United Nations Population Fund.  "Child Marriage."
  Accessed 18 March 2019. Arabic Canada.  " :       7 ."
  13 August 2014. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. 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 attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: "It's been proven by the CDC  [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing." video,   Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: link The Gateway Pundit web page "The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions." Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, "the overwhelming majority" of reported COVID-19 deaths were among "very old Americans"  without going into specifics on what age population that meant  and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets  one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below)  Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. American politicians Trump his campaign adviser QAnon conspiracy theory terms of service   First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19  which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2  attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: article Once inside, the virus hijacks the cells machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells.  As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesnt beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal  including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring  after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: series of tweets After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients.    Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what "numbers" by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, "International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death," which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). document   The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death  or the disease that initiated the train of events leading directly to death," per the WHO's definition  since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. definition Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier  the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nations official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19  which can target blood vessels  and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) data As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death." That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The "6%" claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) here The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems  such as asthma or hypertension  face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: "These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19." NBC News: Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program "Good Morning America: Sept. 1 interview The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19  they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing  the 180,000-plus deaths  are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the "overwhelming majority" of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a "very advanced age." For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older  as well as those who have underlying health problems  are at greater risk for serious problems. "As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19," according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. the CDC Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to "quietly" adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.  NBC News In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates  listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19  as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim  The Dollar Vigilante. "Shocking Admission: CDC Says Over 90% of Deaths Weren't COVAIDS19 and 90% of Tests False Positives."
 LBRY. Accessed 2 September 2020. Hoft, Joe. "SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers  Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone - Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses."
 The Gateway Pundit. 29 August 2020. Dale, Daniel, and Gumbrecht, Jamie. "Twitter Removes QAnon Supporter's False Claims About Coronavirus Death Statistics That Trump Had Retweeted."
 CNN. 31 August 2020. Factba.se. "Donald Trump - Deleted Tweets."
 Accessed 2 September 2020. Saving the Republic. "Updated CDC Covid Numbers Show Only 6% of Total US Deaths Actually Died Solely From Virus."
 Accessed 2 September 2020. ABC News. "Dr. Fauci Weighs in on 6M US Coronavirus Cases, Deaths and CoMorbidity."
 Accessed 2 September 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "National Center for Health Statistics,"
 Accessed 2 September 2020. Flagg, Anna. "Mounting US Deaths Reveal An Outsize Toll On People Of Color."
 The Associated Press. 21 August 2020. World Health Organization. "Violence And Injury Prevention."
 Accessed September 3 2020. Following the arrest of Cesar Sayoc on charges that he sent mail bombs to prominent Democrats and anti-Trump media figures, the pro-Trump conspiracy contingent attempted to paint the suspect as a Democrat who posed as a Republican  innuendo suggesting that Sayocs true goals were to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump and his agenda. Representative of this claim was a 26 October 2018 Facebook meme that labeled Sayoc as a Democrat posing as a Republican and asserted he had recently put his infamous pro-Trump stickers on his van, describing those (false) claims as suspicious: meme   No evidence documents that Sayoc was a "lifelong Democrat"  all signs point to his being relatively apolitical until 2015, although it appeared he attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012. And Sayocs van had sported pro-Trump stickers since at least 2017, and it had contained pro-Trump material since at least 2015. appeared Although news reports have stated that Sayocs relatives are Democrats, Cesar Sayoc has never been registered as a Democrat. His only known voter registration listed his political affiliation as the Florida Republican Party, and it was filed two weeks before Trump won that states GOP primary. Additionally a public records request yielded documents indicating that Sayoc had attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012 but failed to complete his application in both cases: reports documents Records from the Miami-Dade County Elections Department show that on two occasions in October 2012  Oct. 9 and Oct. 26  Sayoc initiated, but didnt complete, new voter registration applications. Both times, he checked the box next to "Republican Party" as his party affiliation. On Oct. 9, 2012, he checked the box that said his was a "new registration," but it appears he left blank the answer to a question about whether hed ever been "adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting." On Oct. 26, 2012, he didnt check any of the boxes indicating the reason behind his registration application (i.e. new registration, address change, name change, party change, etc.) Near the top of that form, someone scribbled, "INCOMP," indicating it was incomplete. According to news reports, most people who interacted with Sayoc prior to 2015 stated he did not appear to be overtly political. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the New York Times that Sayoc seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case. told Daniel Lurvey represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014, and he told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc's ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayocs chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling. told The pattern appeared to have changed by 2015. Sayoc showed up at a Brevard College alumni event for his soccer team that year, where former team members stated that he quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories. Since that time, Sayoc had been an outspoken and fanatical supporter of Donald Trump and an equally outspoken opponent of Democrats online: stated On Twitter and Facebook, he railed against former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey with misspelled racial epithets, threatened former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and praised President Trump and conservative causes. His social-media feeds were an electronic version of the white van carted away by law-enforcement officials on Friday morning, which was covered in stickers praising Mr. Trump, condemning liberals and putting cross hairs over an image of Hillary Clinton. In 2015, as part of a likely effort to make a false insurance claim, Sayoc reported to police that $45,000 worth of suits and costumes he needed for his business were stolen from his van. According to the New York Times, the police report noted that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the presidents clothing brand. police report It is unclear exactly when the outside of Sayoc's van was first festooned with pro-Trump political stickers, but the van had been a common sighting in the South Florida region since at least New Year's Eve of 2017, as reported by the Sun Sentinel: reported I saw this van dozens of times. It always struck me, always unsettled me. It appeared that somebody at times was in the van, though it was hard to tell because of the windows, said David Cypkin, a documentary film producer who co-produced 2006s Cocaine Cowboys" ... Cypkin encountered the van regularly when he lived near the Shoppes at the Waterways in Aventura, where it was regularly parked. Cypkin believed someone could be living in the van, and finally, on the morning of New Years Eve 2017, he snapped a few quick pictures so he could get a better look at some of the stickers later. I had seen it there at least a year, Cypkin said. Assertions that Cesar Sayoc had lifelong Democratic political leanings or that his van was covered in stickers only immediately before his mail-bombing attempts do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. ORourke, Ciara.  "Pipe Bomb Suspect's Florida Voting Records Show Only Republican Affiliation." 
  PolitiFact.  5 November 2018. Healy, Jack et al.  "Cesar Sayoc, Mail Bombing Suspect, Found an Identity in Political Rage and Resentment." 
  The New York Times.  27 October 2018. Nelson, Steven.  "Mail Bomb Suspect Cesar Sayoc Was a 'Big Muscle Head' Stripper, Says Former Boss." 
  Washington Examiner.  26 October 2018. Sweeney, Dan.  "'I Thought He Looked Like a Shooter': Why People Took Pictures of Cesar Sayoc's Van." 
  Sun Sentinel.  26 October 2018. During the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took aim at the nations economic record under President Barack Obama. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama, Cruz said. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country. We decided to fact-check Cruzs statement that we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today since 1977. Cruz is on to something. One key employment statistic known as the civilian labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since the 1970s. This statistic takes the number of Americans in the labor force -- basically, those who are either employed or who are seeking employment and divides it by the total civilian population. Heres a chart going back to the mid 1970s. When the civilian labor force participation rate is low, its a concern, because it means there are fewer working Americans to support non-working Americans. But well offer two asterisks for Cruzs statement. First, as wevenoted before, a notable factor in the decline of the labor-force participation rate is the aging of the Baby Boom generation. As more adults begin moving into retirement age, the percentage of Americans who work is bound to decline. When we last looked at this question in 2013, Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, told us he had estimated that the labor-force participation rate would have fallen in recent years on the basis of aging alone. That said, Cruz has a point that the recession exacerbated that decline. In a weak job market, some people who might otherwise want a job may return to school, become full-time parents or retire early. Second, theres another way to read Cruzs words. He said the lowest percentage of Americans working since 1977, which could also refer to a different statistic, the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of people who are employed and divides it by the civilian population age 16 and above. The difference in this case is that using the employment-population ratio, Cruzs statement is incorrect. Unlike the labor-force participation rate, the employment-population ratio has actually been improving in recent years, although its below its pre-recession highs. Heres a chart showing this statistic over the same time frame:  If you exclude the Great Recession, the employment-population ratio was last at its current rate in 1984, not 1977. So by that measurement, hes close. Our ruling Cruz said, We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Hes put his finger on a trend that worries economists of all stripes, but his wording was sloppy. In addition, its worth remembering that this particular trend is being driven at least to a degree by demographic trends beyond the control of any president. We rate the claim Mostly True.