The Koch network (is) spending more money (in a Senate race) in Ohio than anywhere else in the country.
Voters in Ohio are enduring a deluge of fundraising emails from political groups ahead of the November election, like one from Friends of Sherrod Brown. The senator, in the middle of his second term, is hoping to garner support for fellow Democrat Ted Strickland. Outside special interests like to spend money in Ohio, Browns email said. Back in 2012, they spent $40 million trying to buy my seat in the Senate. Right now, the special interests are up to $30 million spent against Ted -- with the Koch network spending more money in Ohio than anywhere else in the country. Strickland, the former Ohio governor, is running for Senate against incumbent Republican Sen. Rob Portman in one of the tightest races in the country. The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, are tied as the sixth-richest people in the world, each worth an estimated $42 billion. As political and policy influencers advancing a free-market agenda, their network includes the nonprofit Americans for Prosperity and the super PAC, Freedom Partners Action Fund The Kochs can usually be counted on to fund conservative causes, but they haverecoiledfrom the 2016presidentialrace. Is down-ballot spending in Ohio the Kochs biggest imprint so far in the 2016 elections? We turned first to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics for its tallies of outside contributions. The Koch brothers, through their political action network, have spent approximately $8 million in the senate race in Ohio, with almost$2 millionfrom Americans for Prosperity and a little over$6 millionfrom Freedom Partners Action Fund. That is more than the Koch-backed groups have spent in any other race in the country, according to OpenSecrets records. The Koch networks next-largest spending, by comparison, is in North Carolina, where Americans for Prosperity has spent a mere $200,000 againstRep. Renee Ellmers, and in Pennsylvania, where Freedom Partners Action Fund has spent almost $3 million in opposition toKatie McGinty. In opposition spending by Freedom Partners, Strickland has taken the most punishment in 2016 to date, the Center for Responsive Politicsreported. So the Koch network is contributing substantially to help Portman keep his seat. But where did Brown get the $30 million spent against Ted? Here are the numbers for outside spending contributions in the Ohio senate race, according to OpenSecrets.org:  If you add the total outside spending for Portman, and the spending against Strickland, you get $19,232,784. (Were leaving out the primary race spending for the other Democratic candidate, P.G. Sittenfeld, who Strickland beat -- thats the difference between our total and the $19,990,270 above.) Where does the other $10 million come from? Strickland spokesman David Bergstein told PolitiFact Ohio that, in tracking money spent against the candidate, the campaign monitorsannouncementsof advertising purchases, some of which come from 501(c)(4) organizations that dont have to report to the Federal Election Commission. Those dollars, therefore, dont appear on sites like OpenSecrets.org. Counting announcements of spending from these nonprofits, the conservative estimate is closer to $30 million, the campaign said. Bergstein provided a spreadsheet confirming that figure. Stricklands campaign isnt suffering from a lack of outside spending as much as Browns email might suggest.Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to putting Democrats in Senate seats, has spent $8.4 million against Portman and $1.8 million for Strickland. We shared our analysis with Freedom Partners Action PAC, and the group did not dispute our findings. Our ruling A fundraising email in support of Strickland said that the billionaire-backed Koch network has devoted the most money to oppose the Ohio senate candidate than in any other race in the country. Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Action Fund have spent about $8 million to oppose Strickland, which is more than theyve dropped in any other race this election season to date. Stricklands campaign, while hardly immune to special interests, is the Koch networks biggest target in an election year that has seen conservative benefactors steer clear of the main ticket. We rate the claim True.
Although Canada has its share of Starbucks outlets, the local Tim Hortons is the destination of choice for the average Canadian in search of a quick pick-me-up. The coffee vended there is exceptional, but just as important, most of these shops are open 24 hours a day, making a stop at these donut emporiums a personal ritual that can fit into anyone's daily routine no matter what shift he might work. Tim Hortons is Canada's best-known coffee and fresh baked goods chain, established in 1964 and now boasting more than 3,400 stores across Canada and over 800 additional locations within the United States. The chain's reputation rests just as much upon its coffee as its baked goods, so coffee not sold within twenty minutes of its first being offered for sale is thrown out to ensure that patrons always get a fresh cup of java for their money. According to the President and C.O.O. of Tim Hortons, Paul House, the coffee's special appeal to consumers is the result of a superior blend and careful quality control: The Tim Hortons special blend of coffee has been closely guarded from the beginnings of the chain, and is subject to stringent quality assurance measures by a team of coffee experts located at the Tim Hortons head office in Oakville, Ontario. "We do extensive testing and cupping of our coffee to ensure the highest quality standards are met, and now our people can extend that quality right into the roasting process here in Rochester," said [Paul] House. "We start with the best possible arabica beans from various countries of the world to create our special blend, and can follow those beans right through the roasting and packaging processes." Because folks are willing to line up to purchase Tim Hortons coffee rather than secure their daily cup from another source, some people have begun looking for a more sinister explanation beyond the obvious one of "The coffee is really good, the donuts are fresh, and they're always open." The combination of reasonable prices, tasty product, and numerous convenient locations appears to have spawned a particular rumor that attempts to explain the popularity of Tim Hortons' coffee: according to the whispers, the beverage has been made so alluring through the addition of nicotine, MSG, or "the maximum amount of caffeine allowed by law." In one elaborate version of the rumor, a Tim Hortons patron suffers a puzzling and severe allergic reaction after drinking some of the chain's coffee; only under duress (and an insistence on absolute secrecy) does a Tim Hortons executive disclose to the treating doctor a list of the ingredients in their "special blend"  a list that reveals the presence of nicotine. Variants of the basic rumor assert it's not the coffee itself that's loaded with nicotine, but the chain's coffee filters or that nicotine has been sprayed on the inside of its disposable cups. MSG But Tim Hortons coffee does not include nicotine, MSG, an usually high level of caffeine, or any similar additives. Just as the USA has its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of commercially-sold ingestibles, so Canada has its Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Neither agency would permit the knowing inclusion of dangerous substances in a foodstuff vended to an unwary public. CFIA Nicotine is one of the most powerful poisons known. Though we normally think in terms of arsenic and strychnine when the term 'poison' comes up, the truth is that nicotine is far more deadly. The lethal dose of arsenic for a 150 pound adult is 200 mg., for strychnine 75 mg., but for nicotine only 60 mg. Nicotine can and does kill even in relatively small amounts. Those who wear nicotine patches must exercise great care about the disposal of their used patches lest children or pets come in contact with the seemingly "spent" aids and become deeply sickened or even possibly die. Not surprisingly, nicotine is not permitted as a food additive in either Canada or the U.S. As for MSG, although the FDA has designated the additive "generally recognized as safe," many people claim to experience adverse effects (such as headaches) after ingesting it, so all consumables containing the substance have to be clearly labelled to indicate its presence. The "nicotine additive" rumor does not adhere solely to Tim Hortons; it has been kited about other business concerns whose products have proved to be highly (and some would say inexplicably) popular: A friend mentioned that since 1987, McDonalds was putting nicotine into hamburgers to make them addictive. I heard that McDonald's experimented with putting nicotine in their fries to create an addictive property. I just received an email from a friend which claims that Pokemon cards are coated with nicotine, so children will become addicted. The letter claims that Philip Morris company is behind this. In another form the rumor has been known to take, evil-intentioned companies or heartless universities are said to be slipping laxatives into their food to lessen the effects of food poisoning: While at lunch with some friends yesterday, i heard what to me, sounds like a classic urban legend. Apparently there is a tale making the rounds that claims all fast food restaurants inject laxatives into their food so that people will pass the food on quickly, thereby reducing the risk of patrons getting food poisoning. Some of my students have told me something that sounds like an urban legend. They say that the dining service here (Lafayette College) is "required" to put a certain amount of laxatives in the food so that in case people get food poisoning the food will get out of people's systems. In yet another form of the basic rumor, conscienceless fast food companies have been incorporating anti-emetics into their offerings to help patrons keep their food down: In a recent debate with some friends of mine, we started talking about McDonald's and my friends kept telling me that McDonald's add an ingredient that prevents people from throwing up after eating there. A blow to the heart of the rumor in all its manifestations is that extraneous chemicals could not be surreptitiously slipped into any company's ingestible products without leaving that concern open to a stream of customer lawsuits. In the case of nicotine, the number of wrongful death suits filed would be unimaginable, given that it wouldn't take much of that particular poison to kill someone. As for MSG, caffeine, laxatives, or anti-emetics, there is no substance so innocuous that it won't provoke allergic or violent physical reactions in some people. Whatever small advantage a company might gain by adding a little extra something that would addict clients to its offerings would be quickly offset by multi-million dollar losses in civil court and a loss of consumer confidence in the even higher court of public opinion. Folks ain't going to patronize a place known for killing or sickening its customers, no matter how good the coffee. The Tim Hortons rumors reached such prominence that in February 2004 the CBC news program Disclosure conducted its own investigation, one which included having samples of coffee from Tim Hortons (and a couple of competing chains) sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results: Tim Hortons coffee contained no measurable amount of nicotine and had, on average, less caffeine than coffee from either Starbucks or Second Cup. nicotine caffeine Tim Hortons' loyal customer base was built the old-fashioned way: good product served fresh in easily-accessible locations. Additional information:     Tim Hortons web site      CBC Disclosure investigation      Tim Hortons statement officially announced announcement On Aug. 2, 2015, the Facebook page "Tough cookie parenting" shared a seeming movie poster image in a post reporting that a sequel to the popular 1993 Disney comedy horror film "Hocus Pocus" was in the works: shared movie poster image   Social media response to the "Hocus Pocus 2" rumor was unusually strong, and the image was shared several hundred thousands of times in just 24 hours. While not initially considered a massive success, "Hocus Pocus" eventually reached the status of cult classic, and Facebook users were clearly excited about the prospect of developments in the production of "Hocus Pocus 2" (a project that has inspired years of rumors). cult classic years However, the Facebook page responsible for the spread of revived "Hocus Pocus 2" rumors published a subsequent Facebook comment admitting that the claim was not based on any new, credible, or substantiated developments: "I'm not for sure, but there's talk. They have a Facebook page... but ya know... man, I hope it's real ..." admitting Moreover, the user didn't provide a link for the Facebook page she referenced (nor any other information to indicate the rumor was based on any new information). Some users linked to a July 2, 2014, IMDb post (that appeared to be user-submitted) titled "Updated: Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch Official," which claimed: post Well then. We cannot say that we saw this one coming. The Tracking Board is reporting that a sequel to the Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy comedic witch flick from 1993, Hocus Pocus, is officially on its way. Read on for the first details. The original cast is not likely to be coming back. Allison Shearmur Productions has signed to produce Hocus Pocus 2: Rise of the Elderwitch. Tendo Nagenda and Jessica Virtue are executive producing at Disney. That rumor (which maintained that none of the original cast members would return for the purported sequel) was swiftly debunked in a July 2, 2014, Deadline article titled "Disney Developing Witch Pic with Tina Fey  But It's Not Hocus Pocus 2'": article Hocus shmocus: Disney is in early development with Tina Fey on a supernatural-themed feature, but a knowledgeable source tells me its not the Hocus Pocus sequel thats being wrongly buzzed about all over town. The film, currently known as Untitled Witch Project, will be produced by Fey and Cinderella producer Allison Shearmur in whats described as falling in the vein of Ghostbusters, with 30 Rock Golden Globe winner Fey also attached to star. Sorry to break it to fans of the 1993 Bette Midler horror-comedy: No Hocus Pocus 2 project is currently in the works at the Mouse House  yet. Stay tuned to see if the nostalgic wave of online buzz conjures a return for the Sanderson Sisters. In November 2014, "Hocus Pocus" star Bette Midler fielded multiple questions about the possibility of "Hocus Pocus 2" during a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything). Midler herself expressed both willingness and a strong interest on her part (as well as that of co-stars Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker), but definitively stated that Disney had thus far not reciprocated it. Reddit AMA Questions about "Hocus Pocus 2" were so numerous that Midler edited her original post to disseminate the following message to eager fans: Update: Inundate the Disney company, because I have canvassed the girls and they are wiling [sic] to do it, but we have no say in it, so if you want a HOCUS POCUS 2, ask the Walt Disney company. You have been SO adorable. This has been most enlightening. SISTAHS! So while interest in a "Hocus Pocus" sequel remains strong, as of 2015 "Hocus Pocus 2" was not in production. Update: On Dec. 12, 2020, Snopes staff updated this story after Disney officially announced a sequel to "Hocus Pocus." The claim for this story was altered to more specifically focus on the fake movie poster. In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. In June 2016, researchers at Columbia University and the French National Institute published a study concluding that nearly 60 percent of links shared on social media are never clicked and read  that people share news stories based on headlines alone. study And what does this have to do with asteroids hitting the earth? In July 2016, Yackler Magazine published an article bearing the clickbait title, "Scientists Say Giant Asteroid Could Hit Earth Next Week, Causing Mass Devastation". While the first two paragraphs of the article were dedicated to the terrifying doomsday event, the author eventually conceded that "nah," she was "totally messing with you": article Scientists have discovered a massive asteroid that is on course to hit the Earth next week, and are scrambling to find a way to divert the object. The asteroid has been named 2016-FI and measures approximately 1 km across. If it strikes a populated area is could wipe out entire cities and potentially devastate an entire continent or  nah. Im totally messing with you. Theres no asteroid (at least not about to strike next week). After the clickbait title and a little misinformation, Yackler Magazine provided some quotes from the study and explained that the article was published as a sort of experiment of their own. The article concluded with a call to its readers to use a color word while commenting to show that they had read the article: study   While many readers passed the test with, well, flying colors, others shared the article about a giant asteroid heading toward earth on Facebook: shared People are more willing to share an article than read it, study co-author Arnaud Legout said in a statement. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary, or a summary of summaries, without making the effort to go deeper. To reiterate: there's no giant asteroid heading to earth, and the frightening title was a "social experiment" to see how many people actually read the article. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. This might not quite be the stat heard round the world, but politicos could not resist passing along one factoid that seemed to capture the improbability of House Majority Leader Eric Cantors, R-Va., stunning defeat in his primary race against Dave Brat. Cantor's campaign spent more at steak houses than Brat spent on his entire campaign, said Chuck Todd, host of MSNBCsThe Daily Rundown. Talk about a claim made for headlines and Twitter. Eric Cantor: Burned at the steakhouse, saidRolling Stonemagazine. High steaks politics and Wheres the beef popped up in the twittersphere. Theres no disputing the accuracy of the comparison, which first showed up in theNew York Times. According to campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics,Cantor spent $168,000on fundraising events at three Virginia restaurants -- Bobby Vans Grill, Bobby Van's Steakhouse, and Blt Steak. Brat spent a little less than $123,000across the board for his campaign, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, which cover spending up until May 21, 2014. Overall, Cantor outspent Brat more than 40 to 1, according to available records, and still lost by 10 percentage points. Theres good reason for the collective astonishment -- this is a rare event. I can't think of any (case) in which the incumbent's spending advantage was so huge and he still lost, said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego. Another political scientist, John Sides at George Washington University, has a database with about 9,100 House general election contests. Sides tracks which candidate won and which spent the most money. Being outspent was a clear disadvantage. In only 10 percent of races did the candidate who got outspent actually win, Sides said. Now, this concerns general elections, not primary contests like the one Cantor lost, but Sides said the pattern wouldnt change much. Money is a very tangible perk that comes with incumbency. The Center for Responsive Politics calculated the odds of a challenger beating an incumbent going back to 1998. In the best year, 2006, challengers who spent $1 million or less, like Brat, had a 1 percent chance of winning. In every other election, their odds were much worse. Our ruling Todd said that Cantor spent more at steakhouses than Brat did in his entire campaign. The latest campaign finance reports back that up. Cantor spent $168,000 on steakhouse dinnersto Brats $123,000 spent in the overall campaign. We rate the claim True. An anecdote about Donald Trump and his outsized U.S. flag and pole neatly encapsulated what so many people found either most appealing or most distasteful about the business magnate and 2016 Republican presidential candidate: to some he was the no-nonsense take-charge type who had the power and influence to thwart those who would insist on allowing the enforcement of petty rules or "political correctness" impede the progress of business and the course of "making America great again"; to others he was a wealthy blowhard who thought the rules didn't apply to him and habitually bullied others into submission to feed his lust for self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment: When Trump purchased and rebuilt Mar-A-Lago the Grand mansion and estate in Palm beach, Florida he got into a dispute with the city, who are well known for being strict on zoning regulations. Trump put up a 50 foot flag pole even though 30 foot is the maximum allowed. The city imposed a 1,000 dollar fine per day. While Trump and the city argued back and forth, finally when the fine had reached 120,000 dollars Trump proposed a solution. He would donate that amount to veterans organizations, would move the flag and pole to a different location in front of the mansion and would only use a 30 foot flag pole. The city agreed. So Trump brought in the company who does Golf course construction had them build a 20 foot high grassy hill and put a 30 foot flag pole on top of it. The basic facts are these: In 1985, Donald Trump paid $10 million for Mar-A-Lago, the name of the Marjorie Merriweather Post estate in Palm Beach, Florida. On 3 October 2006, Trump had an outsized American flag (variously described as being either 15x25 feet or 20x30 feet) installed on an 80-foot-high flagpole at Mar-a-Lago, in violation of local zoning regulations that established a maximum size of 4x6 feet for flags and a maximum height of 42 feet for flagpoles. Trump put up his regulation-violating flag and pole without obtaining either a building permit permit or a variance from local authorities, and the Palm Beach town council accordingly fined him $1,250 (or, in some accounts, $250) for every day the flag remained in place (apparently citing him only for the pole but not the flag itself). Trump in turn filed a $25 million lawsuit against Palm Beach, claiming that the town was selectively enforcing its rules (by not fining other properties that were flying flags in violation of town ordinances) and infringing his constitutional right to free speech. Six months later the two sides finally reached an agreement during "secret, court-ordered negotiations," with the town agreeing to waive all fines against Trump for his code-busting flagpole and to "review its ordinances and codes dealing with flagpoles and flags during the next zoning season," and Trump agreeing to drop his lawsuit, lower the height of his flagpole from 80 to 70 feet, obtain a permit for the pole and move it farther inland, and donate $100,000 "to charities dealing with Iraq War Veterans, [the] American Flag, or the local VA hospital." So, the anecdote reproduced above is true in its broad strokes, although all of the numbers it cites (dollar amounts and dimensions) are inaccurate, the issue was resolved via court-ordered mediation (not by Trump's "proposing a solution"), and the money Trump agreed to donate to settle the matter went to organizations selected by both sides (although Trump had previously stated that if he won his 15x25 feet or $25 million lawsuit, the proceeds would go to military members returning from Iraq). However, the New York state attorney general later sued Trump for paying the fine through his nonprofit Donald J. Trump Foundation instead of from his personal finances: sued The New York state attorney general sued U.S. President Donald Trump, three of his children and his foundation, saying he illegally used the nonprofit as a personal "checkbook" for his own benefit, including his 2016 presidential campaign. Another $100,000 went to another charity in 2007 to settle a legal dispute over a flagpole erected in violation of local ordinances at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's private club and sometime residence in Palm Beach, Florida. We also haven't been able to verify whether Trump connived to maintain (or even exceed) the height of the original pole by installing a 10-foot-shorter pole on a 20-foot-high hill  pictures of the estate show the flagpole rising from a mound, but the height of the mound is difficult to estimate from photographs:  Trump's lawsuit maintained that he couldn't bring his flag and pole into compliance with regulations because "A smaller flag and pole on Mar-A-Lago's property would be lost given its massive size, look silly instead of make a statement, and most importantly would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump's and the Club's members' patriotism." In his statements to the news media at the time he typically framed the issue as being one of his standing up to anti-American, anti-flag, anti-patriotic forces, while acknowledging that he hadn't even bothered applying for a permit first (because he didn't think he'd get one) and stating that he didn't believe rules should apply to the American flag (and therefore to him in this instance): "Well, I put up an American flag on the front of the Mar-a-Lago Club, which is a great house, probably the greatest house in America that I turned into a private club very successfully in Palm Beach, Florida. And the flag is very proudly waving, and the town wants me to take it down. Because they say I put it up without a permit and, frankly, had I gone to the town for a permit they wouldn't have given it to me, probably. But more importantly, I say that you don't need a permit to put up the American flag. I don't think they know what their beef is. I'm not sure they really understand what their beef is. They don't talk about the flag. They only talk about the flagpole because they're afraid politically to mention the word flag and the American flag and take it down. And I'll say it's probably one of the most popular things I've ever done because we've had hundreds and hundreds of letters and thousands of requests for everything supporting the flag. Everybody wants it. Everybody wants it up. But the town wants me to take down the American flag, and I told them I'm not doing that. This is probably the wealthiest town  it is the wealthiest town in America, in the United States, and frankly it's a town that wants me to take down a flag and they shouldn't be asking for that. So it's been a very, very problematic situation. I'll be responding to them very shortly. And you know, I'm a big  I'm a very patriotic guy. I'm very proud of the country, and I don't want to take down the American flag. And I don't believe you need permits to put up the American flag."  Long-time Palm Beach Post correspondent Frank Cerabino opined that the Palm Beach flag brouhaha had little or nothing to do with patriotism, but rather was part of a pattern of Trump's using lawsuits to bend local authorities to his will  dredging up excuses to sue them for exorbitant amounts of money, then offering to drop the suits in exchange for agreements that provide him with significant business advantages: Oh, he knew what he was doing. Trump, after all, had been fighting with the town poohbahs from the very moment he'd crashed into the complacent, clubby world of Palm Beach to buy Mar-a-Lago, which turned out to be one of those great deals he couldn't afford. Trump knew from experience that Palm Beach was a stickler for adherence to its ordinances. He had once paid a $5,000 fine to the town for replacing a section of dead hedges with replacements that weren't quite tall enough. But Trump had bigger changes in mind than merely out-flagging his neighbors. He was plainly inviting a lawsuit. The town council took the bait, citing the oversized pole and flag as violations of the town code, and fining Trump $250 a day for every day they remained on the estate. Tucked into his patriotic posturing was a completely unrelated legal matter that he made part of his multi-million lawsuit: a complaint about the town code that requires large commercial enterprises to be "town serving." The town requires proof from local businesses that at least 50 percent of their business comes from town residents. So, for example, when Neiman Marcus opened on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, it was allowed to do so by promising that it would only advertise in the town's newspaper, and not in publications that circulated to shoppers who don't live on the island. For Trump, eliminating the "town serving" requirement would mean that he could offer more memberships to his Mar-a-Lago social club to people who had no connection to Palm Beach, making it easier for him to keep his club full. Softening up the town on the flag issue to pursue some other angle was a classic Trump move. Though he has yet to get this particular exemption waived, Palm Beach has learned from experience that Trump's lawsuits are never settled, just dormant. One of his Palm Beach lawyers said recently that the "town serving" issue is still unresolved and ripe for more litigation. Trump [initially] couldn't afford [to maintain] Mar-a-Lago as a single family home. His proposed solution was to chop his National Historic Landmark into something he called Mansions of Mar-a-Lago, a development that would put a public road through the middle of the estate, which would lead to the 10 mini-mansions he would build on the property, including one on the front lawn. The Palm Beach Town Council shot down all of Trump's proposed changes to the property, even when he reduced his mini-mansion plans from 10 to seven. Instead, they encouraged him to find a buyer if he couldn't afford to keep the estate intact. When the town's government refused to bend to his demands, Trump sued. The lawsuit against the Town of Palm Beach, which would prove to be not his last, would eventually cause his neighbors to lawyer up against him. After his Mansions of Mar-a-Lago plan was rejected, Trump found another way to salvage his stake in Mar-a-Lago. He offered to drop his lawsuit if council members allowed him to convert his estate into a new private club on the island. The Mar-a-Lago Club. While Trump was playing defense against the town's constant attempt to rein him in, he went on the attack against the county and its airport. Airlines routinely used a flight path in and out of Palm Beach International Airport in nearby West Palm Beach that brought the planes directly over Mar-a-Lago. This didn't sit well with Trump, who argued that the noise and fumes were ruining his investment, and that the decent thing for the county to do was to move the airport farther west. Trump had been arguing this for years, to no avail, while calling the airport director Bruce Pelly, among other things, a "moron" and "the worst airport director in the country." It turned out to be a useful gripe for Trump, one that he could turn into a new business opportunity, because just south of the airport was 214 acres of vacant scrub land owned by Palm Beach County, land he wanted. So Trump sued the county for $75 million over the airport noise, then negotiated to drop that lawsuit in exchange for the county giving him a 75-year lease on the nearby property for $438,000 a year. That land became the Trump International Golf Club, a $40 million, 18-hole, Jim Fazio-designed course that imported nearly 2 million cubic yards of dirt to transform the flat scrub land into hilly terrain with waterfalls, rock formations, and a clubhouse four stories above sea level.  This wasn't the only instance of flagpole bickering in Trump's past. He also reached a (non-court) settlement with local government in 2014 after having raised Old Glory on a 70-foot flagpole at the Trump National Golf Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, without obtaining a permit first: Signaling a possible resolution to Donald Trump's running flag feud, the California Coastal Commission said the mogul's oversized Old Glory can stay  as long as Rancho Palos Verdes revises its municipal height rules. While not the victory city officials had hoped for, the decision allows for a way forward to legally allow the 70-foot-tall flagpole, which was hoisted without a permit nearly 10 years ago. Having gained the support of much of the coastal city  as well as two City Councils through the years  the flag now likely can get formal state approval provided the city amends its Local Coastal Program that currently limits structure heights to 26 feet. "I'm disappointed at the Trump Organization for putting up that flag without adhering to the rule of law," said Coastal Commissioner Wendy Mitchell. Commission staff members had recommended that the flagpole be reduced in height to 26 feet and moved closer to the clubhouse on the 240-acre Trump National Golf Course property.  Apgar, Sally.  "Trump Settles Dispute Over Flag."   [Palm Beach] Sun Sentinel.  24 April 2007. Cerabino, Frank.  "Trump's War with Palm Beach."   Politico.  5 September 2015. Gibson, John.  "Donald Trump's Flag Fight."   FoxNews.com.  2 November 2006. Littlejohn, Donna.  "Coastal Commission Lets Donald Trump's Giant Flagpole Stand."   The Daily Breeze.  9 July 2014. Associated Press.  "Donald Trump Files $10 Million Lawsuit Against Palm Beach."   FoxNews.com.  25 December 2006. Associated Press.  "City to Trump: You're Fined!"   CNN.com.  19 January 2007. Stempel, Jonathan and Jonathan Allen.  "New York Sues Trump and His Charity Over 'Self-Dealing.'   Reuters.  14 June 2018. After the Starbucks coffee chain announced that they would be closing their stores on 29 May 2018 to conduct racial-bias education following the controversial arrest of two black men at one of their locations in Philadelphia, an image purportedly showing a Starbucks coupon offered exclusively to customers of African-American heritage began to circulate on social media: announced controversial   The "apology" coupon was fake that was not released by Starbucks and was not redeemable at any of the chain's locations -- it was a race-based hoax that was likely created (and certainly spread) by users of the 4chan internet forum.  A spokesperson for Starbucks told Business Insider that "This [coupon] is completely false and [is] in no way associated with Starbucks." Business Insider Although we have not yet pinpointed the exact origins of this fake flyer, we did find several threads on 4chan promoting the dissemination of this hoax in an attempt to spread racial discord: threads 4chan promoting   4chan users also implored each other to share this fake coupon with the hashtag #FreeBlackCoffee in threads filled with racial slurs. In fact, the QR code in the above-displayed coupon spells out the word "n**ger" when scanned. 4chan has a history of creating fake coupons with the intent of mocking Starbucks' "liberal" positions. When the company announced their support for Dreamers and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, trolls on the forum created mock-ups for a fake Starbucks "Dreamer Day" coupon.  announced Similar fake flyers for a "Welcome Refugees" promotion were posted to the r/The_Donald section of reddit after Starbucks announced in 2017 that they would be hiring over 10,000 displaced peoples over the following 5 years. Welcome Refugees announced Taylor, Kate.  "Free Starbucks Is a Hoax from 4Chan."
  Business Insider.  18 April 2018. On Aug. 23, 2020, bystanders' cellphone videos captured a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shooting a Black man, Jacob Blake, multiple times as he opened the door to his vehicle. The footage went viral on social media and sparked deadly protests in the lakeside city over racism in American policing. Jacob Blake deadly protests One video, which a neighbor recorded from a second-story apartment nearby, showed Blake, 29, trying to get into his SUV from the driver-side door as a police officer pointed a gun at him, grabbed him by his shirt and then fired several times  shooting Blake in the back. Another clip documented the scene from the ground level, as children and other witnesses watched from a yard. The officer who fired his weapon was identified as Rusten Sheskey, according to Wisconsin's attorney general. video clip identified The day after the shooting, which left Blake paralyzed from the waist down as of this writing, advocates for police reform argued that if those witnesses had not taken out their phones, the public would not have known about the officers' use of potentially-lethal force. It was unclear whether dashboard cameras on squad cars captured the incident, and Kenosha officers do not wear body cameras  leading tools for holding officers accountable for their actions. paralyzed Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Blake's family, as well as other high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans, including the relatives of George Floyd, tweeted: representing George Floyd,  We considered his underlying claim to be this: Kenosha city leaders approved an "ordinance" in 2017 that "required" all of Kenosha's roughly 200 police officers to wear body cameras, but, despite that active policy, the city had not purchased the technology as of August 2020. Additionally, the lawyer alleged the city was planning to buy the devices in 2022. First, to find any evidence of a 2017 policy that would make body cameras mandatory for all officers, Snopes combed through meeting agendas and minutes for the Kenosha Common Council  the city's 17-member group with the authority to write legislation for the city of roughly 100,000 people between Milwaukee and Chicago. We found an archived video of a council committee meeting on Feb. 27, 2017, where former Alderperson Kevin Mathewson asked the group to approve a formal request for the mayor to set aside city funding in the following year's budget to outfit officers with body cameras. "The city, unfortunately, has been a little slow to implement much technology," he said in his testimony. "If we can help document incidents better, and give the [district attorney] tools to make quicker convictions with less resources, we can save cops from violence ... I think it's a great thing." Roughly one month later, on March 20, 2017, the council unanimously approved the below-displayed resolution  not an ordinance and not Mathewson's budget proposal  that formalized city leaders' support for the devices. But that move was largely a statement to urge state legislators and then-Gov. Scott Walker to establish guidelines for how local police departments store and release the cameras' data, not an enforceable policy to make the devices mandatory for Kenosha officers. approved    Notably, the resolution stated: [I]mplementation of Body Worn Cameras for officers of the Kenosha Police Department is dependent on resolution of policy concerns associated with matters such as usage, storage, requirements, Public Record limitation, and privacy issues involving Body Worn Cameras.  In other words, it was true to state Kenosha city leaders expressed support for equipping police officers with body cameras in 2017, but they did not mandate the technology. Rather, its adoption hinged on if or when the state passed an all-encompassing law governing the devices, per the resolution. (In February 2020, Gov. Tony Evers passed a law outlining body camera regulations for police agencies.) passed A note on semantics here: According to the city of Kenosha's Code of General Ordinances, the council adopts both ordinances and resolutions with its legislative authority, though the latter are temporary in nature and often used for establishing fees and permits, while the former are municipal laws. Calling the March 2017 measure about body cameras an ordinance, like the claim alleged, was incorrect; it did not create an enforceable policy. Code of General Ordinances Next, we searched for any proof to confirm or deny another aspect of the claim: that the city had not purchased the devices as of August 2020. We learned that was true. A February 2020 story by Kenosha News said neither the city police department nor the Kenosha county Sheriff's Department used body-worn cameras. And the day after Blake's shooting, on Aug. 24, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian confirmed to reporters that the city had not yet purchased the technology but had plans to do so. story confirmed Lastly, we looked for documentation of those efforts that would tell us if the city was indeed preparing to spend the money in 2022 and then deploy the cameras after that. For that step, Snopes reviewed the city's 2020 operating budget, which included a four-year plan for spending on police department projects. That 445-page document included the below-displayed table and confirmed that the city was indeed preparing to spend $200,000 on police body cameras in 2022. 445-page document  Rocco LaMacchia, chairman of the councils public safety committee, told The Associated Press the city initially planned to buy the devices in 2020, but funding shortfalls and technological concerns prompted the city to delay the purchase for two years. We have moved it back so many times, he said in the Aug. 25, 2020, story. I got a feeling this is going to move up on the ladder really fast because of whats going on around the United States right now." The Associated Press In sum, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehood. It was accurate to claim Kenosha leaders unanimously endorsed the use of body cameras in 2017, though it was false to say they created an enforceable policy, or an ordinance, to require all police officers to wear the devices. Additionally, it was true to assert the city had not bought the devices as of August 2020 and was planning to make the purchase in 2022. Mathewson, Kevin.  "Urge The Mayor To Include Funding For Police Body Worn Cameras (BWC) In The 2018 CIP."
  City of Kenosha.  Accessed 26 August 2020. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "Senate Bill 50."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Police Department.  "2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan."
  Accessed 26 August 2020. Zampanti, Jeffrey.  "Body Cameras Gaining Popularity Despite Challenges."
  Kenosha News.  29 February 2020. Foley, Ryan.  "Kenosha Delayed Body Cameras For Years Before Black Shooting."
 The Associated Press.  25 August 2020. Kenosha News.  "In Photos: County Board Committees Consider Body Cams For Sheriff's Department."
  17 July 2020. Kenosha News. "Body Camera Funds Shouldn't Go By The Wayside."
  27 March 2020. Jones, Meg and Joe Taschler. "Less Than 3 Minutes Passed Between When Kenosha Police Arrived And When Jacob Blake Was Shot, According To Dispatch Audio."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 25 August 2020. Bosman, Julie, and Sarah Mervosh.  "Wisconsin Reels After Police Shooting And Second Night of Protests."
 The New York Times.  24 August 2020. Claim:  Senator John Kerry referred to a Secret Service agent as a "son of a bitch."    . Origins:  Prior to February 2004, Senator John Kerry was the polar opposite of a "household name"  very few who didn't follow politics had even heard of him, let alone felt they had some sense of the man. Yet his emergence as the Democratic Party's front runner for the presidential nomination has stirred interest in the Senator, leaving a great many folks wondering what sort of fellow he is.  Because few Americans will have a chance to make the Senator's acquaintance before being called upon to cast their votes in the November   2004 election, most will have to base their assessments of his character upon accounts given by others. Yet sorting fact from rumor is often a difficult task in that all too often the stories that appear to offer startling insight can't be proved or disproved; they exist as unverifiable anecdotes (e.g., the rumor that John Kerry ate some long-suffering pilot's pizza). pizza However, every now and then a story comes along that the news agencies have vetted. Which brings us to the "son of a bitch" incident of 18 March 2004. While snowboarding in Ketchum, Idaho, Senator Kerry was knocked over by one of the Secret Service men assigned to protect him. According to The New York Times, "Mr. Kerry [was] taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow." A reporter and camera crew, who were following on skis, witnessed the collision but did not capture it on film. When asked about the crash, the Senator said, "I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me." Or "knocked me over," depending on which version you heard. (Actually, the Senator does fall down, at least according to The New York Post, which reported him as having taken a header on the wet floor of a convenience store the night before.) It probably needs to be pointed out the Senator referred to the agent in such fashion to a third party, as opposed to shouting his assessment into the bodyguard's face at the time of the accident. Yet, that Mr. Kerry didn't deliver the insult directly might speak worse of him. Though the etiquette mavens might not agree, it's almost understandable to call the other party to an accident all manner of cuss words in the immediate aftermath of a collision. Such an outburst is akin to dancing about swearing a blue streak after dropping a hammer on your foot, in that what is vented  though heartily felt at the time  is inappropriate and is realized to be such once the moment has passed. Yet, once there is distance between the accident and the fulmination, the "heat of the moment" defense no longer applies in that sober reflection is presumed to have taken place in the  interim. Did sufficient time pass between the accident and the remark for the initial frustration over having been upended into the snow in front of an audience to have worn off? Or did one follow quickly upon the heels of the other? The New York Times characterized that span as "a moment later" whereas CNN said "He later used an expletive to describe the agent who knocked him down," a phrasing that implies the passage of a goodly chunk of time, even if it doesn't state so outright. Whether Senator Kerry had time to cool down or not, it was churlish of him to call the person charged with protecting his life a son-of-a-bitch, and foolhardy to address such remark to a reporter, an act guaranteed to propel the ire-filled comment into the morning editions. Discretion around members of the fourth estate needs to be second nature for those who look to make their careers in politics, in that an elected official given to blurting things willy-nilly is a liability to those he serves. In similar vein, if a man can't be troubled to speak well of his Secret Service cover, the very agents who will lay down their lives for him, he should at least be enough of a gentleman to refrain from describing them with cuss words. Some who have encountered this story have stopped to ponder if perhaps the Senator voiced his "son of a bitch" characterization in an affectionate or playful manner, as some are wont to do in reference to acquaintances they feel particularly close to. Or, that the remark had been delivered in a tone of pretend anger as a way of ruefully admitting how inglorious the collision must have appeared to onlookers. Yet those theories wash out upon examination of the earliest account. According to The New York Times' description of the incident, Senator Kerry wasn't joking  he was pissed off: When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over." "Sharply" does not describe any form of affectionate phrasing. Far from escaping public notice, Kerry's characterization of one of his government-appointed bodyguards became fodder for Jay Leno of The Tonight Show on 22 March 2004: But he's [John Kerry] quite an athlete. They showed him snowboarding. He's in Idaho and he's snowboarding. You see him on the news? He is pretty good. He's a good snowboarder. Man, he was going downhill faster than Howard Dean. It was unbelievable. There was an accident on the slopes. This is true. Kerry snowboarding. A skier collided with him, knocked him to the ground. Kerry got up, called the guy a son of a bitch. That's what he called the guy. In fact, today the FCC fined him $500,000 dollars and told him the next time he goes snowboarding it has to be with a five-second delay. President Bush has also been guilty of publicly labeling someone with a vulgarity  in 2000 while then the Republican presidental nominee, his privately-meant assessment of a certain reporter as "a major league asshole" was picked up by a live microphone. Our Major League Remark describes what happened and how, plus offers a variety of points to ponder for those intent upon working out whether President Bush or Senator Kerry was the more boorish. Major League Remark Barbara "the boor war" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 September 2007    Sources:   Crowley, Candy.  "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics."   CNN.  19 March 2004.    Halbfinger, David.  "Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All."   The New York Times.  19 March 2004  (p. A20).    Parker, Kathleen.  "Be a Sport, Senator Kerry."   Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  31 March 2004  (p. A15).    The New York Post.  "Kerry Flopped Day Before, Too."   21 March 2004  (p. 10).    The White House Bulletin.  "Late Night Political Humor."   22 March 2004.