Is There a Warrant for CIA Director Nominee Gina Haspel's Arrest?
The Trump administration has had its share of embattled nominees, but President Donald Trump's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2018 is controversial even by those standards.  Trump nominated the agency's deputy director, Gina Haspel, on 13 March 2018. But her record has come under question both in the U.S. and abroad because of her service while stationed at a secret CIA facility in 2002, leading to allegations that she committed war crimes (with commentary appearing, naturally, in meme form):   A human rights advocacy group  the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)  has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying: saying: Those who commit, order or allow torture should be brought before a court  this is especially true for senior officials from powerful nations. The prosecutor must, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, open investigations, secure evidence and seek an arrest warrant. If the deputy director travels to Germany or Europe, she must be arrested. Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions: said If you allow her to come here, you are making a clear political decision that you prioritize that over your obligations under the Convention Against Torture They can't say they didn't know who was coming here. Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.) reportedly retracted. The use of waterboarding  or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time  was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report: banned report CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values. In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program: called As we move forward with the nomination process for Ms. Haspel, my fellow Senators and I must have the complete picture of Ms. Haspel's involvement in the program in order to fully and fairly review her record and qualifications. I also believe the American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to be the director of the CIA played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history. Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active. Paul McCain Michaelson, Jay. "Could CIA Nominee Gina Haspel Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?"
  The Daily Beast. 19 March 2018. Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Feinstein to CIA: Release Haspel Torture Documents."
  15 March 2018. Goldman, Adam. "Gina Haspel, Trump's Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program."
  New York Times. 13 March 2018. Bonner, Raymond. "Correction: Trump's Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah."
  ProPublica. 15 March 2018. MacAskill, Ewen. "Obama: 'I Believe Waterboarding Was Torture, And it Was a Mistake.'"
  The Guardian. 29 April 2009. Paul, Rand. "Why I'm Against Gina Haspel."
  Politico. 18 March 2018. Sen. John McCain. "Statement by SASC Chairman John McCain on Leadership Changes at State Department & CIA."
13 March 2018.
On 1 June 2017, President Donald Trump announced that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, an international accord that seeks to "bring all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects."  Many environmentalists, scientists, politicians, and others criticized President Trump's decision, one entity among that group of dissenters being the web site of the Weather Channel, which was altered in ways that clearly indicated disagreement with the President's announcement:  This form of protest might have seemed all the more surprising given that the Weather Channel's co-founder has long disputed the concept of anthropogenic global warming. John Coleman, who passed away in January 2018,  was a former television weather forecaster who worked in that field for over six decades, at a number of different TV stations across the U.S., until he suddenly retired from his last job at KUSI-TV in San Diego in April 2014.  Coleman pioneered the use of such now-standard TV weather forecasting elements as onscreen satellite technology and computer graphics, and he was also instrumental in the founding of The Weather Channel (TWC) on cable television, serving as that channel's CEO and President during its establishment and its first year of operation.  John Coleman also became, in later years, an outspoken critic of the global warming issue, stating that his epiphany came while he was viewing a football game in 2007: critic The Eagles were playing the Cowboys in Philadelphia on Sunday Night Football, and as a gesture of environmental awareness  it was "Green is Universal" week at NBC-Universal  the studio lights were cut for portions of the pre-game and half-time shows. Coleman, who had been growing increasingly skeptical about global warming for more than a decade, finally snapped. "I couldnt take it anymore," said. "I did a Howard Beale." In November 2007 Coleman penned a widely-reproduced essay in which he labeled global warming "the greatest scam in history" and "a manufactured crisis," and he delivered a speech in that same vein to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in June 2008: essay speech You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.  It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalists attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam. The future of our civilization lies in the balance.   That's the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.  The future of our civilization is in the balance. With a preacher's zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.  Here is my rebuttal.  There is no significant man made global warming.  There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.  But mankinds activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. [Rest of speech here.] here Although this item is superficially "true" in the sense that the words quoted above were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they "refute" global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration.  As Coleman's critics have noted, he did not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor did he study or conduct any research in that field; he merely parroted arguments advanced by others: Both Fox News and CNN have recently invited John Coleman, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and former TV meteorologist, to express his views about climate change to their national audiences. Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and Im not even sure he knows what he actually believes. To begin, Coleman hasn't published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April.  If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer. But a climate scientist, he is not. His position further demonstrates an incredible lack of respect and regard for scores of intelligent, hard-working climate scientists, some of whom are politically conservative, who have dedicated their careers to objectively examining data and publishing research that indicate human-induced warming. Moreover, much of Coleman's criticism of climate change dealt with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work: For the many Americans who don't understand the difference between weather  the short-term behavior of the atmosphere  and climate  the broader system in which weather happens  Coleman's professional background made him a genuine authority on global warming. It was an impression that Coleman encouraged. Global warming "is not something you 'believe in,'" he wrote in his essay. "It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise." Except that it wasn't. Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism. And then there was the fact that the research that Coleman was rejecting wasn't "the science of meteorology" at all  it was the science of climatology, a field in which Coleman had spent no time whatsoever. Skepticism is, of course, the core value of scientific inquiry. But the essay that Coleman published would have more properly been termed rejectionism. Coleman wasn't arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research  something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, "look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else." Critics of Coleman who do study and work in the field of climate science have produced detailed line-by-line rebuttals of his arguments against global warming. rebuttals Homans, Charles.  "Hot Air."
  Columbia Journalism Review.  7 January 2010.
 Peterson, Carla.  "Forecast for John Coleman: Retirement."
  U-T San Diego.  10 April 2014. Weyrich, Paul M.  "A False Frenzy on Global Warming "
  CNSNews.  11 July 2008. Samenow, Jason.  "Why Does Anyone Pay Attention to John Coleman, Weather Channel Co-Founder, on Climate Change?"
  The Washington Post.  3 November 2014. Claim:  Photographs show businesses that posted "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" signs. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  Skewering a political candidate with an apropos comment is a time-honored way of making a point. Of late, we're seeing this tradition expand into the online world of blogs and message boards but also into the offline world via signage on businesses. The sign pictured above was displayed outside the Mandeville, Louisiana, office of State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg.  The sign actually bore different legends on each side, one side displaying the "chicken" message shown above and the other side referencing an apocryphal quote attributed to Senator Obama about his hoping to change "the greatest nation in the history of the world": change  A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg's office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm's policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns. Both signs are reminiscent of the KFC offering lampooning Senator Hillary Clinton. KFC offering However, although this particular insurance vendor posted the "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" billboard, he most certainly wasn't the first to get off this zinger. That withering assessment has been leveled at numerous U.S. and Canadian politicians over the years: [Moseley, October 2004] If you are on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, a baby-boomer, unemployed, a minority, parent with school-aged children, a college student, without medical insurance, balancing your personal budget, not a CEO, purchasing gasoline, wanting clean air and water, a 401-K owner or earn less than $200,000 per year, then voting for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Carville, January 2003] The previous highest-ranking black official was Mr. JC Watts from Oklahoma. Do you know what his own father said? A black person voting for a Republican would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Charleston Daily Mail, October 1996] Any hardworking person who votes Republican is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Rogers, March 1996] When workers voted for Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario, 1995-2002], it was like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.  [United Press International, October 1984] A working man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Waters, November 1982] For all that, Brinkley got off the evening's snappiest line: "Auto workers voting for Republicans this year are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Feinstein, October 1982] [Michael] Barnes told the gathering of about 150 union leaders and members that "for a working man or woman in this country to vote Republican in 1982 would be a like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Sheppard, October 1978] Mr. [Steven] Langdon [NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre riding] told an audience that for Ottawa Centre to vote Tory [Progressive Conservative] is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. One of Bud Gregg's messages inspired a realtor in Texas to post the same sentiment on a sign outside his business:  Bob Costilow, the owner of Bob Costilow Realtors in Nederland, Texas, said he was appalled by the capital gains tax portion of Senator Obama's tax plan. "I saw it (i.e., the "chicken" saying) in an e-mail on a sign put up by a State Farm agent in Mandeville, Louisiana," he said. "I loved it. I have gotten some calls about it, and some of them were even congratulatory in nature." Barbara "inspiration point" Mikkelson Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. verified Last updated:  10 April 2009    Feinstein, John.  "Mondale Is Democrats' Heavy Artillery in Md."   The Washington Post.  20 October 1982  (p. A20).    Ferraro, Thomas.  "Washington News."   United Press International.  11 October 1984.    Hayes, Greg.  "Realtor's Expression of Political Opinion Doesn't Set Well with Passerby."   Beaumont Enterprise.  17 July 2008.    Heathcock, Jennifer.  "Political Message Strikes Chord with Some Southeast Texans."   KFDM-TV [Beaumont, TX].  23 July 2008.    Kotz, Pete.  "The Enemy Within."   Cleveland Scene.  3 March 2004.    Moseley, Don.  "Letter: Vote for Colonel Sanders."   Farmington Daily Times.  26 October 2004  (p. A9).    Rogers, Linda.  "Stop Tearing Each Other Down."   The Toronto Star.  8 March 1996  (p. A20).    Sheppard, Robert.  "Anti-Liberal Feelings Haunt Mackasey."   The Globe and Mail.  7 October 1978.    Waters, Harry.  "Winning the Viewers' Votes."   Newsweek.  15 November 1982  (p. 55).    Charleston Daily Mail.  "Readers' Vent Line."   11 October 1996  (p. D5). During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. In the summer of 2016, as Donald Trump made strong arguments against immigration and said that he would build a border wall and deport illegal immigrants, the following photograph circulated, showing the Republican presidential nominee alongside Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks:   While Donald Trump has battled accusations of racism throughout his 2016 presidential campaign (and throughout much of his career), his supporters have shared the above-displayed photograph as proof that Trump is not racist. When The American Mirror published this photograph on 4 September 2016, they asserted that Trump had never been accused of racism before he ran for president (which is demonstrably false) and argued that if Trump were a racist, he would have never posed for a photograph with Ali and Parks: The American Mirror false No one accused Donald Trump of being a racist until he decided to run for president and became a threat to Hillary Clintons return to power. In 1986, Trump joined several other prominent Americans, such as Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali, as recipients of an Ellis Island Award. One suspects if Trump was a racist, theres no way he would have posed for a photo with those two. The photograph is real. It was taken on 27 October 1986 by Getty photographer Yvonne Hemsey at a ceremony honoring the recipients of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. (Joe DiMaggio, Victor Borge, and Anita Bryant are also featured in the photograph.) Getty The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is awarded each year in celebration of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity": Medal of Honor The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. They recognize individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity; all while maintaining the traditions of their ethnic heritage as they uphold the ideals and spirit of America. As always, NECO remains dedicated to the maintenance and restoration of Americas greatest symbol of its immigrant history, Ellis Island. Trump was one of 80 individuals to receive the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1986, the first year that the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations handed out the award. However,  1986 the fact that Donald Trump received the award and posed for a photograph says little about his motivations or whether or not he has racist tendencies, only that he received an award and participated in a ceremony meant to honor him (and others). Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was similarly honored with the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1999. honored The New York Times.  "80 Named as Recipients of Ellis Island Awards."
  16 October 1986. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Did he or didnt he? Only the ghost of Strom Thurmond knows for sure. Mystery surrounds whether, back in 1984, the former senator from South Carolina knowingly deprived Puerto Rico of bankruptcy protections that every U.S. state enjoys. Its crunch time for Puerto Rico. The island territory needs to pay bondholders $422 million on May 1. It doesnt have the cash, it cant use bankruptcy to reschedule its payments, and Congress seems unlikely to craft a solution in time to avoid a massive default. During hisApril 24, 2016,HBO showLast Week Tonight, comedian and social critic John Oliver described the devils brew of legal oddities and fiscal recklessness by Puerto Rican officials that brought the island territory of the United States to the financial brink. If you are massively in debt and you cant declare bankruptcy, you are stuck, Oliver said. And this happened because of a tiny amendment to a law in 1984, and the crazy thing is, no one can say why it was written. The tiny amendment Oliver mentioned was stuck in the most boring location one could ever imagine  in the definitions section ofHR 5174, a bill geared mainly to fixing the bankruptcy court system. Buried in a long list of changes was the meaning of state. 'State' includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, except for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 of this title; That was it. With those two dozen words, the bankruptcy protections that applied to every state, and until 1984, to Puerto Rico, too, were wiped away. We tried to find out for ourselves why that amendment got attached, Oliver said. We knew Strom Thurmond had proposed it. So we asked an archivist at the library where his papers are kept to go through the relevant papers, and they came up with nothing. Oliver quipped about that lack of a paper trail, saying it might be the best scenario for Thurmond given his reputation for fervent racism. Oliver enlivened his diatribe over Puerto Rico's dilemma witha rapperformed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the son of Puerto Rican parents and the creator and star of the Broadway hitHamilton.Miranda mentioned Thurmond, too: Somewhere down the line Strom Thurmond's ghost busted a cap at a chance at Chapter 9. Which brings us to the focus of this fact-check: Did Thurmond propose the cunning words that ultimately caught Puerto Rico in a debtors vice? Thurmonds role Ina 2015 ruling, the judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals provided some very helpful background. In March 1984, the House passed its version of a bankruptcy bill. That version did not have the Puerto Rico exemption. Then on May 21, 1984, the judges wrote that Thurmond introduced the package of changes that included the text at the center of this controversy. On the day that he introduced the amendment, Senator Thurmond addressed the Senate to explain several of its numerous stipulations, yet said little about the newly added Puerto Rico exemption, the judges wrote. In fact, we went through theCongressional Recordfor that day (thank you, Internet Archive). Thurmond said less than little. He said nothing. The record shows that after Thurmonds amendment, the exemption became part of the final legislation. While this seems to point the finger at Thurmond, theres more to this story. Aside from introducing the overall amendment, Thurmond might not have had much to do with the text. It had been introduced four years before, and not in the Senate, but in the House. Congress earlier run at changing the law Experts question whether Thurmond actually understood the significance of the amendment. To see why, we have to go back to 1978. That year, Congress gave the bankruptcy law a complete overhaul. As often happens with major legislation, various gaps and ambiguities emerged and, in 1979, the Senate passed a bill to tidy up the loose ends. Among the dross, the Senate defined states to include Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and any territory or possession of the United States. That legislation moved over to the House, and here the trail becomes murky. Bankruptcy law professor Stephen Lubben at Seton Hall University traced thetwists and turns in a 2014 article. In July 1980, the House Judiciary Committee returned with an amendment to the Senate bill that struck the entire Senate text and replaced it with theJudiciary Committees desired text, including a new definition of state,  Lubben wrote. The House version, under Democratic control, had the Chapter 9 bankruptcy exclusion for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. That bill never passed, but in April 1981, Lubben found that the exclusion language resurfaced in the Senate. This exclusion was never discussed by Congress, at least publicly, and the language apparently simply materialized as a result of the House Judiciary Committees extensive revision of the 1979 Senate technical corrections bill, Lubben wrote. Lubben told us that the text in Thurmonds 1984 amendment was essentially the same language that was kicking around since 1980. Its not even clear that the parties even understood what was going on, Lubben said. The only thing we can say for certain is the change happened without a whole lot of thought behind it. Another factor makes it hard to find Thurmonds fingerprints on the text that beleaguers Puerto Rico today. The change was never offered as a stand-alone item. It was always bundled with a number of other small changes. Law professor John Pottow at the University of Michigan told us, Strom Thurmond might have introduced that, but its an overstatement to say he played a big role. A final mystery  if youve followed the trail this far, you will notice that in 1984, the House version of the bill didnt have the Puerto Rico exclusion. The logical question is, why was it dropped when the House was the first to add it in 1980? We wish we knew. Our ruling Oliver said we know that Thurmond proposed the text that stripped Puerto Rico of the right to let municipalities and public utilities declare bankruptcy. There is no question that Thurmond introduced the amendment with that change. So technically, he did propose it.But theres no evidence that he came up with the idea, and experts question that he understood the significance of the change that would follow. The statement is accurate but requires some additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/260b6aad-f921-45fc-9937-1d82d35f7874 This fact-check previously contained erroneous references about the timing of Strom Thurmond's Senate career and Lin-Manuel Miranda's birthplace. In late March 2020, a meme circulated on social media that falsely reported the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., had "laundered" COVID-19 stimulus money for the Democratic Party instead of paying its workforce, including musicians with the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO):The Kennedy Center, a major venue for classical performing arts in Washington, D.C., did receive $25 million from the $2.2 trillion federal-relief package to stem financial fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The relief package included millions earmarked to support various arts organizations.  The Center also completed a privately funded $250 million renovation in late 2019 and received an appropriation in 2019 of $41 million from the U.S. government in 2019. Both examples listed in the meme, however, are unrelated to funds it received in the coronavirus-relief package. $250 million $41 million Furthermore, the Center did indeed furlough workers, including orchestral musicians, even after learning it would receive $25 million from the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that President Donald Trump signed into law on March 27, 2020. However, the Center, which is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, did not then donate $5 million of relief funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Under U.S. tax law, 501(c)3 organizations are legally prohibited from making "contributions to political campaign funds." A spokeswoman for the Center confirmed to us that the organization made no contribution to the DNC and said the Center "has never donated money to a political organization." legally According to a statement from the Center, the organization furloughed the majority of its workforce beginning April 6 through "at least May 10, 2020." Even with the $25 million federal relief funds, the Center said its financial projections showed it would "run out of cash as early as July. In order to stretch the Centers finances as long as possible, we must take immediate action to change our expense structure and preserve cash." The Twitter user who originated the meme followed up by clarifying that she meant the scenario as a "hypothetical" and not as something to be taken literally: clarifying  John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts."A Statement from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts."
31 March 2020. DC Federation of Musicians."Kennedy Center Unilaterally Cuts Off National Symphony Orchestra Musicians Pay."
29 March 2020. McGlone, Peggy."Kennedy Center Announces 250 More Layoffs in Wake of $25 Million Federal Grant."
 The Washington Post.31 March 2020. Internal Revenue Service."The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations." U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, recently invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to drum up support for raising taxes for a new stimulus program.During a June 5floor speech, Connolly lamented the refusal of House Republican leaders to allow the American Jobs Act to come up for a vote. The bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, calls for $447 billion over 10 years to pay for infrastructure and school improvements, new job training programs, unemployment insurance, and temporary tax cuts for working families and small businesses.The stimulus would be funded by levying taxes on corporations and people earning more than $1 million a year.Connolly said the House, in considering the legislation, should ask, What would Ronald Reagan do?Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt, Connolly said. Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.Lets start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.So its accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but theres a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nations tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.Reagans efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. As a result, Reagan was willing to accept and sometimes promote proposals that would close loopholes and create a broader tax base, according to C. Eugene Steuerle, who organized the Treasury Department's 1984-86 tax reform effort and is now a fellow at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center.This April, President Barack Obama said Reagan understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. PolitiFact National rated the claimMostly True, noting that Reagan did not repeatedly propose increases but agreed to tax hikes put forth by Congress.Our rulingConnolly said Reagan, as president raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan did, in fact, sign off on at least one tax increase during each of those years.Some of the increases were modest in scope. And its important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nations GDP, went down during Reagans presidency.But theres no doubt that Reagan was willing to cut budget deals that included raising revenues. We rate Connollys statement True. Like most members of Congress, Toledo Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur is a big booster of her congressional district. During a May 17 appearance on C-SPAN, Kaptur described the reconfigured area that shell represent if she wins her race against Republican Samuel Joe the Plumber Wurzelbacher as the crown jewels of Ohio.To illustrate the areas industrial prowess,  Kaptur discussed how she enjoys pulling her car over beside the railroad tracks in Toledo and watching all the flatbeds go by, full of steel coils, bar steel and other metals bound for auto plants or gas drilling facilities elsewhere in Ohio.One of Kapturs boasts about the areas manufacturing accomplishments got PolitiFact Ohios attention.The region I represent, both currently and in the future, has more automotive plants than the entire state of California, Kaptur said.Could the slice of Ohio that Kaptur now represents, as well as the new district that stretches along Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland, really have more auto plants than the nations most populous state?Getting the answer was be easier than we thought.It turns out that California no longer has any auto plants. The last car one -a joint venture between Toyota and General Motors in Fremont- closed in 2010.The Los Angeles Times saidthe plants closure marked the the end of large-scale auto manufacturing in California, which over the years boasted a dozen or more plants building vehicles ranging from Studebakers to Camaro muscle cars.Toyota made Corollas cars and Tacoma pickup trucks at the plant in Fremont, while GM made Pontiac Vibes.GM dropped its portion of the plant in its bankruptcy. Then Toyota scrapped its portion. At the time, the United Auto Workers union criticized Toyota for the decision, saying it was dumping the plant because it was the companys only unionized facility in the United States.Tesla Motors wants to  reopen that factoryto manufacture its all-electric Model S sedan, but hasnt yet done so.The district that Kaptur currently represents has four auto plants, according to her spokesman, Steve Fought: Chryslers Toledo Supplier Park and Toledo North plants,  GMsToledo Transmissionplant, andKBIs bearing plantin Sandusky. The new Ninth District will have three more: FordsBrook Park Engine Plant,  FordsAvon Lake plant, and GMsParma Metal Center.The number of auto plants in Kapturs current and new congressional districts both exceed the number of auto plants in California - zero.On the Truth-O-Meter, Kapturs claim rates True. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012