Christian Pilots and the Rapture
Claim:   Airlines will not pair Christian pilots and co-pilots out of fear that the Rapture will snatch away both crew members capable of landing the flight.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I just heard for the third time in as many years that some airlines will not put a whole flight crew of "Christian believers" in the same plane, just in case the "rapture theory" is true. I guess the thought is that the plane would be left unmanned and crash into whatever and kill thousands (like 9/11) if the rapture theory turns out to be correct Bible doctrine.  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] I was raised a Southern Baptist and twice now a preacher has made reference to airlines pairing their pilots with one Christian (or saved)and one non-Christian (or un-saved). This is done on the pre-text that if and when the 2nd coming of Christ happens and the one Christian pilot is taken into the clouds with Christ, leaving the non-Christian pilot to supposedly land the plane safely alone.  One preacher specifically mentioned American Airlines as having this policy. Origins:   While many of those of the Christian faith may be unfamiliar with the concept of the faithful suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, this belief permeates a number of fundamentalist branches of Christianity. Known as "The Rapture," it refers to a time when Jesus will return to claim the faithful, drawing Christians (both the still living and the already dead) up into the clouds to meet Him. It is said this event will be followed by seven years of famine, plagues, pestilence, and three world wars before the Savior returns, an interval often referred to as "The Tribulation." The basis for belief in the Rapture lies in the Bible, specifically in this passage from 1 Thessalonians: this passage For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Those who believe in the Rapture hold as a tenet of faith the sudden celestial appearance of Christ at some future unknowable date, immediatelyfollowed by the irresistible summoning heavenward of all who follow His teachings.  The   faithful will be pulled towards the Christ the way iron filings are pulled towards a magnet, rendering the Earth depopulated of the godly and leaving the godless (or at least the Christ-rejecting) to battle their way through the horrors of this world's final seven years.  The Rapture interpretation of 1 Thessalonians is not shared by the majority of Christians and appears to date to 1909, when the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published. Prior to that time, this parsing of 1 Thessalonians' "caught up in the air" passage was unknown, although in the 19th century theologian J.N. Darby popularized the idea that there would be a "secret rapture" seven years before the Christ really returned, and the non-Christians who didn't disappear into the air would be left to face the anti-Christ.  Rapture believers envision a time when the faithful will be abruptly swept into the safety and calm of Heaven, even as their less stalwart human brethren live on to battle great evil and suffering that will culminate in the end of the world. Part of that envisioning process is imagining not just the nightmare of the post-Rapture earthly existence their faith will spare them from knowing, but also the immediate effect their departure will have on those fated to remain behind. From this visualization springs the belief about airline or FAA regulations restricting Christian flight crews from serving together lest the Rapture snatch away everyone who can keep a plane in the air.  Because those who accept the Rapture as an article of faith plan their lives with this event in mind, they project others must be doing so as well. The presumption is further fueled by Rev. Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind series of novels, in the first of which Pan-Continental Airlines' Capt. Rayford Steele weathers the disappearance of many of his passengers during an overnight flight to England.  Left Behind How far the "Christian pilots and co-pilots barred from serving together" supposition dates back is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it from 1993, so it certainly has been part of the canon of widely-held beliefs for some time. The rumor has come to us variously as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or "the airlines" restricting flight crew composition on religious basis out of concern that the Rapture will  FAA otherwise bring planes crashing to the ground. (Actually, if the FAA or "the airlines" were concerned about guarding against the Rapture's snatching away key personnel, they should also fret over air traffic controllers, because in their hands lies the safety of all who are in the air at any given time. A Raptured flight crew would result in the downing of one plane; Raptured air traffic control centers would endanger multiple planes attempting to take off or land.) We asked the FAA about the possibility of its having a policy that barred the Raptureable from serving with each other, only to be told by one of its representatives: "The FAA does not have any regulations referencing religious beliefs." Likewise, our query in this vein to American Airlines was met with the assurance that AA does not now have such a policy, nor has it ever had one. Ergo, since neither airline nor FAA policy covers this event, if you're unsure of your state of salvation, pray for an atheist on the flight deck. The Rapture stars in another bit of well-traveled lore involving a supposed freakish fatality. In "Leap of Faith," a woman who believes she sees the Rapture taking place jumps out of her car in traffic. Leap of Faith Barbara "jump for joy" Mikkelson Additional information:    Definition of The Rapture  (BibleBell Chronicles)      Preparing for The Rapture  (Free Gospel Bible Institute)   Last updated:  12 May 2005    Wineke, William.  "Giving Wings to Rapture."    Wisconsin State Journal.  10 February 2001  (p. C1).
In late November and early December 2020, social media users shared posts claiming that former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been selected by President-elect Joe Biden to serve as climate envoy in his administration, owns multiple cars, yachts, homes, and a private jet. selected The source of this claim appears to be a "copypasta" meme circulating on social media platforms, meaning that people are copying and pasting text and sharing it without any accompanying supporting evidence. The intent of the posts appeared to be criticism of Kerry's lifestyle, which leaves a larger carbon footprint than the average person's. copypasta Here is an example, with the Facebook user's name cropped out for privacy:   The text of the post reads, "John Kerry as climate czar? Only Democrats could pick a guy with 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts and a private jet to tell you that YOU should take the bus, don't eat meat, use electric cars and not fart to stop pollution." The block of text appears to be based on past news stories, many of them published in the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election, in which Kerry was the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent President George W. Bush. Kerry's bid for the White House was unsuccessful, as Bush won a second term. But his campaign resulted in media scrutiny of his finances, namely wealth in his marriage that belongs mostly to his wife, Heinz ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, with whom Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement. signed As we reported in 2004, the couple owned five homes at the time, with a combined value of roughly $29 million. She bought four of those before her marriage, and the couple jointly owned one. In 2017 the couple sold the home in Nantucket, which belonged to his wife's family, and purchased one in Martha's Vineyard. reported sold purchased The couple did make use of a luxury yacht, which brought Kerry scrutiny and criticism during the 2004 election cycle over reports that he docked it in Rhode Island to avoid paying higher taxes in Massachusetts. They sold it in 2017. Kerry has also made use of a private jet, but that, too, belongs to his wife. sold belongs The matter of the Kerrys' cars also came up in 2004, when news outlets reported that he owned multiple vehicles. At the time, he was criticized for calling on people to buy American-made products while his wife drove a German-made car. reported It is true that Kerry has made use of multiple homes, vehicles, a private jet and a yacht over the course of years, though much of the property belongs to his wife. It does appear, however, that the meme exaggerated the number of homes and yachts they have owned. On March 23, 2021, shipping traffic through Egypt's Suez Canal was grounded to a halt after a large vessel called the "Ever Given" got stuck in the passageway. Shortly after news broke about this blocked shipping route, an image started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed how the Ever Given, a nearly 200-foot wide, 224,000-ton vessel, had "drawn" a penis in its route movements shortly before it entered the Suez Canal:   This is a genuine image showing the Ever Given's route before it got stuck in the Suez Canal. While it may resemble a rough drawing of a penis, there's no evidence to indicate that this was "drawn" on purpose. The image comes from a video created by the vessel-trafficking service provider VesselFinder.com. The video shows the movements of the Ever Given as it waited for its turn to enter the Suez Canal. Vessel Finder wrote: VesselFinder.com On the occasion of the disputed incident of the ultra-large container ship Ever Given blocking the Suez Canal, the VesselFinder team made a video simulation of the movements of the ship in more detail, for some time before it got stuck in the canal and blocked the main artery of cargo flow between Asia and Europe. Here's the video:  While some social media users may have been skeptical of this image, thinking that it was just a crude joke, a spokesperson for Vesselfinder.com confirmed to Vice that the route was genuine, adding that "there is no room for some kind of conspiracies or false data." Vice Another map from the ship-tracking website Myshiptracking.com also shows the Ever Given's seemingly NSFW route.  map Myshiptracking.com CNN reported on March 24 that eight tugboats were working to free the vessel, but that it could be days before the Suez Canal, one of the world's busiest shipping routes, returns to normal traffic levels: reported Eight tug boats are working to free a large container ship stuck in Egypt's Suez Canal, halting marine traffic through one of the busiest and most important waterways in the world. The rescue boats are working to float and release the Ever Given, a 59-meter-wide (193.5-feet) vessel that ran aground after 40-knot winds and a sandstorm caused low visibility and poor navigation, the Suez Canal Authority said in a statement Wednesday. The 224,000-ton vessel, sailing under a Panama flag, was en route to the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands when it was knocked off course. An alarming photograph of a car after it was impaled by a guard rail is frequently presented as if it shows an accident that was the result of distracted driving. The most popular iterations of this rumor, such as this May 2018 Facebook post, also include a gory story about how the driver's torso was found in the car's trunk with a phone still in her hand: Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of a crash scene. However, the accompanying backstory is unsubstantiated. It appears that this photograph was first posted to Flickr by EMS Flight Crew, an international community of air medical professionals, in October 2010. That posting did not include any information about where or when this accident occurred, nor any information about what caused the crash (such as texting and driving.) We assume that the driver was alive when emergency crews first arrived on the scene, as the photograph was accompanied by a number of tags such as "air evac," "air rescue," and "life flight." Flickr Although it was originally posted and shared simply because it is an image of a shocking car accident, by 2012 it was being used to dissuade drivers from texting and driving. In fact, EMS Flight Crew may have been the first to share this photograph attached to a warning about distracted driving:   However, it doesn't appear that EMS Flight Crew is describing the cause of this specific crash. Rather, this appears to be a general warning against distracted driving. A few months prior, the same Facebook page asked users to suggest a headline for the photograph. "Don't text and drive" was one of the suggestions: prior   As there is no credible source confirming that the driver of this vehicle was texting at the time of the crash, we are highly suspect of the gory story claiming that the bisected driver was still clutching her phone when her body was recovered from the trunk of the car.  The photograph itself seems to disprove this story, as the driver's side chair is still intact.  Texting while driving is certainly a dangerous (and illegal) activity that could result in a similar car crash to the one depicted above. However, there's no evidence that this specific car accident was actually caused by a distracted driver. The story about the bisected driver clutching her phone was likely manufactured in an attempt to scare drivers from using their phones while driving. Although this story may have created with good intentions  after all, more than a quarter of car accidents in 2014 involved some form of cellphone use  this rumor is little more than unsubstantiated scarebait. 2014 We've reached out to EMS Flight Crew for more information about this crash, and will update this article if more information becomes available. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. The Virginia Education Association says the state has been saving money by lowering public school standards.Since the 2008 General Assembly, we have permanently cut biennial funding for public education by $1.6 billion through changes in the Standards of Quality funding formula, VEA President Kitty Boitnottsaidin a Jan. 23 news conference.The $1.6 billion cited by Boitnott is an eye-popping number. We wanted to know if her figure is correct and if the loss of the funding is, as she said permanent.The Standards of Quality are minimum mandates Virginia sets forth for public education on teacher-pupil ratios, benefits for educators and basic curricula. The General Assembly sets the benchmarks every two years after considering recommendations by the state Board of Education.Virginia is required by law to pay 55 percent of the overall cost of the SOQs and local school districts must pay the rest. For this two-year budget cycle, which began July 1, 2010, the state will pay about $9.6 billion toward meeting the SOQs, and localities will pay about $7.8 billion.Boitnott is essentially saying the state obligation would have been $1.6 billion higher if the General Assembly had not taken steps since 2008 to lower Virginias education standards.Robley Jones, the VEAs director of government relations, said Boitnotts figures came from areporton education funding released last month by the Senate Finance Committee. The study contained a table detailing the 10 substantive reductions to public education programs approved by the General Assembly since 2008. The cuts came to a biennial total of $1.57 billion, and Boitnott rounded up.The biggest savings came from reducing the number of support positions -- such as clerks, teacher aides and bus drivers -- required by the state. That action removed $754 million in SOQ obligations.Lawmakers in 2010 found another $513 million in savings by eliminating certain types of equipment and travel from SOQ calculations and changing the formula for estimating health care costs for school employees.Boitnott, however, is slightly off in her analysis of the the Senate Finance Committees data. The table makes no claim that the 10 cut education programs it lists were part of the SOQs, as Boitnott suggests.In fact, four of the items were not part of the states minimum requirements, according to Charles Pyle, a spokesman for the Department of Education. They account for $174 million in biennial costs.So the real reduction in SOQ mandates comes to about $1.4 billion per biennium. Jones, who provided the information for Boitnotts statement, said he made an inadvertent mistake in computing the SOQ reductions.That brings us down to one last question: Are the cuts to the SOQ formula permanent, as Boitnott says?Technically, they are not. The General Assembly is free to restore the funding, but that is not likely to happen. Julie Grimes, a spokeswoman at the Department of Education, said officials there cannot recall an instance where legislators cut funding for an SOQ program and later replenished it.When the state reduces funding for SOQ programs, localities often absorb the costs. Most school districts in Virginia are not satisfied with just attaining minimum SOQ standards and fund their schools at far greater levels than the state demands.The SOQs allow legislators to claim they fund 55 percent of the states educational mandates. But a different picture emerges when total expenditures on Virginia public education are computed. The localities pay about 50 percent, the state, the state pays 40 percent and roughly 10 percent comes from the federal government.Our ruling:Boitnott said that since 2008, the legislature has permanently cut $1.6 billion in programs from the states formula for funding public schools. Shes a bit off; the actual figure is $1.4 billion.Boitnott said these losses are permanent. The General Assembly could restore funding, but a spokesman at the state Department of Education said officials cannot recall an instance where lawmakers cut an SOQ program and later reversed themselves.We rate Boitnotts claim Mostly True. On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016):  Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years:  We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice  According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews.  "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse."
18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'"
The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'"
The Washington Post.15 January 2017. Claim:  A new White House policy eliminates combat pay for U.S. military personnel "unless they are being shot at."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] Obama pulls combat pay from service personnel.  President Obama's latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I'm constantly in a combat zone  it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense ... come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here  Florida Marine Corp Soldier  Origins:  This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization.  It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress: National Defense Authorization Act The first major overhaul in hostile fire pay since World War II has been ordered by a Senate committee in a plan that would pay troops based on their actual number of days in a hostile area rather than a flat monthly rate. Approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the 2012 defense authorization bill, S 1254, the provision would convert the current $225 for hostile fire and imminent danger pay, paid for any month in which a person spends any time in a designated zone, to a new prorated payment of $7.50 for each day spent in a designated danger zone. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel panel, called the change a "basic accounting measure to ensure that individuals receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in qualifying areas." Webb said ground combat troops will see "minimal impact" from the change "as they are stationed full time in the qualifying areas." In effect, all members of the U.S. military continue to receive imminent danger pay (IDP) for serving in areas "where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions," whether or not they are actually "shot at."  The change that came about in February 2012 was that previously service members received a flat monthly payment ($225) for each month in which they spent any time at all in an imminent danger pay area; instead, they are now paid a per diem rate of $7.50 for each day they actually spend in such areas.  Service members who come under fire still receive the full monthly hostile fire pay amount regardless of where they are serving. As described by the Air Force Times, the reasoning behind the change in policy was as follows: Beginning with Feb. 15 [2012] paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450  two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called "sightseer pay." The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. Exceptions will be made for troops who are "exposed to a hostile fire incident." Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy:  release Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said. The change, which took effect [1 February 2012], was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31. "Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. "This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said. Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should  keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said. The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command. Last updated:  31 December 2013    Tighman, Andrew.  "New Danger Pay Rules Begin."   Air Force Times.  7 February 2012. Following the death of Carrie Fisher, the resurgent interest in her most famous role (that of Princess Leia in Star Wars) prompted renewed attention to the subject of the inspiration behind the most distinctive aspect of her character's appearance: Princess Leia's iconic look was inspired by real-life Mexican Revolutionaries pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K  NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 29, 2016 December 29, 2016 The debate regarding Princess (later General) Leia Organa's hair, and specifically her hair buns, began in 2002 when Star Wars creator George Lucas offered this explanation about it to Time magazine: offered In the 1977 film, I was working very hard to create something different that wasnt fashion, so I went with a kind of Southwestern Pancho Villa woman revolutionary look, which is what that is. The buns are basically from the turn-of-the-century Mexico. Then it took such hits and became such a thing. But as Remezcla reported, the claim came under question when the character's hair was compared to pictures of adelitas, as women who fought in the Mexican revolution were called, that exhibited no such hairstyle: reported, adelitas Lucas revelation of the hairstyles origins only seemed to cause confusion across the internet. Some found it difficult to find photographic evidence for Lucas claims. Perhaps, they only saw images of soldaderas wearing hats. (All Star Wars historian Michael Heilemann could find were these bun-less images of adelitas.) As a result, some began to look elsewhere to find other possible explanations. bun-less images In fact, some critics argued, Leia's hair more closely resembled a traditional hairstyle worn by women of the Hopi Native American tribe. But Eric Tang, an associate professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas-Austin, added to the discussion when he posted a picture (that post being no longer publicly available on Facebook) taken from a Star Wars exhibition currently on display at the Denver Art Museum that seemingly supported the "Mexican revolutionary" claim. worn exhibition The museum confirmed to Snopes on 30 December 2016 that the referenced photograph was part of their exhibition, and sent us full-length pictures of the display, as well as a transcription of the audio accompanying it:   Princess Leias side cinnamon-bun hairdo was one of the most iconic looks from the original "Star Wars" films. Some twenty years later, actress Natalie Portman wore these fake hair rolls to reprise the hairstyle as Padm Amidala in the film "Attack of the Clones." Clearly, George Lucas and his team had learned a thing or two in the intervening years. While it took actress Carrie Fisher two hours to have her hair done as Leia, Portman could just pop on her side buns in a matter of minutes. But where did this unusual hairstyle originate in the first place? Look for some of the reference photos nearby. For Princess Leia in the original "Star Wars," George Lucas was inspired by a traditional Hopi Native American hairstyle. For Leias mother, Padm, Lucas prequel team looked at Hopi and Mexican Revolution imagery for inspiration, and sketched even more dramatically shaped variations of the coiffure  as you can see in the drawing in this display. The response to Leias hair had been so overwhelming in the 1970s and beyond, that Lucas encouraged the prequel designers to be even more outlandish, drawing everything from space mohawks to snakelike coils, hair nautilus shells, and everything in between. A museum spokesperson could not directly confirm the origin of the picture other than to say it was "sourced from the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art archives at Skywalker Ranch." (We contacted Lucasfilm seeking additional information, but the film company did not respond.) However, we were able to track it down fairly easily, as it is a famous photograph of Mexican soldadera and guerrilla fighter Clara de la Rocha, as seen below (alongide her father, General Herculano de la Rocha): photograph General  Clara de la Rocha is described in the book Las Soldaderas: Women of the Mexican Revolution as a guerilla commander who played an important role in the seizing of the city of Culiacn, Sinaloa in 1911, alongside her father. She eventually earned the rank of coronela, or colonel, in the fight against Porfirio Diaz's regime. described regime One of her descendants, Alexandra de la Rocha, told Public Radio International that she saw Tang's post about the exhibit and recounted some of the soldadera's exploits: told She actually crossed a river on horseback ... and was able to take out a power station in order to allow the rebel forces to attack during night without being seen. he was a grizzled woman, as her father was. They were mountain people, and were actually miners and owned a lot of land. They were business people. Clara de la Rocha died in 1970 in Culiacn, the site of her most famous battle. While she was certainly not the only inspiration for the Leia Organa character's hairstyle, she was by all accounts a major one. Cagle, Jess.  "So, What's the Deal with Leia's Hair?" 
  Time.  21 April 2002. Simn, Yara.  "Princess Leias Iconic Buns Were Inspired by These Revolutionary-Era Mexican Women." 
  Remezcla.  28 December 2016.  El Informador.  "Las 'Adelitas', Las Otras Revolucionarias."     Informador.   19 November 2010. Denver Art Museum.   "Star Wars and the Power of Costume."  
   denverartmuseum.org The de la Rocha History Project.  "Herculan y Coronela Clara de la Rocha." 
  delarochahistory.com

 Public Radio International.  "The Little-Known Link Between Princess Leias Iconic Hairstyle and the Mexican Revolution." 
  30 December 2016. [01/23/2020]: Removed broken Facebook embed. Claim:  The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is changing its name to the Obama Center.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Rumor:  The Kennedy Center For The Arts' name is being changed to the Obama Center For The Arts.   Origins:  The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a performance hall and education complex located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. Although the Kennedy Center is the official home of the National Symphony Orchestra and the Washington National Opera, it is most widely known for hosting the annual Kennedy Center Honors, a program which recognizes living individuals for lifetime artistic achievement and which is broadcast live on network television each year. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center Honors Although the legislation to establish a National  Cultural Center was signed by President Eisenhower in 1958, it was President and Mrs. Kennedy who used their influence as well known patrons of the arts to raise the private funds necessary to establish and maintain the center. After President Kennedy's death in 1963, Congress "designated the National Cultural Center ... as a 'living memorial' to Kennedy."  living memorial But there is another Kennedy Center, this one a community recreation center and senior citizens hall in Willingboro, New Jersey. In early August 2014 the Willingboro Township Council voted to rename that Kennedy Center in honor of President Barack Obama: A recreation and senior citizens center in Willingboro known as the "Kennedy Center" will soon be named after the sitting president and not a former one. The change became official Tuesday when the township council voted to change the name of the building to honor President Barack Obama. The name of the street the building is on  Kennedy Way  will not be changed. A shopping center across the street is also named for Kennedy. That name change was planned as part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the Willingboro community facility, which converted the former high school cafeteria into a banquet hall. But after alumnae/i of the former Kennedy High School protested, the Willingboro council reversed the decision at its September 2014 meeting: Dawn Donnelly, of Burlington Township, a 1977 graduate of Kennedy, came to the meeting with 1,200 signatures of those opposing the name change. Im an Obama supporter, Donnelly said. I voted for him two times, and I would vote for him again. Its not about that.... Kennedy meant a lot to this town in the 1960s. They are changing history. Last updated:   3 September 2014    Goldman, Jeff.  "Building In N.J. Town Named After John F. Kennedy Will Now Be Named   After Obama."   The Star-Ledger.  7 August 2014.     Levinsky, David and Rose Krebs.  "Willingboro Council Reverses Kennedy Center Name Change."   Burlington County Times.  2 September 2014.