Did Astronaut Mark Kelly Say the 'Space Force' Was a 'Dumb Idea?'
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence's August 2018 announcement of plans for the creation of a sixth branch of the U.S. military dubbed "Space Force" drew mixed reactions from pundits, politicians, and Trump administration supporters and critics. Retired astronaut Mark Kelly was one of those who supposedly chimed in on the issue, as reflected in a meme circulated by social media users that quoted him as opining that the proposed Space Force was a "dumb idea":   This is a genuine quote from Mark Kelly, who flew several missions on NASA's Space Shuttle from 2001 to 2011. The wording was taken from a tweet the former astronaut posted in June 2018 shortly after President Trump directed the Pentagon to "begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces": directed This is a dumb idea. The Air Force does this already. That is their job. Whats next, we move submarines to the 7th branch and call it the under-the-sea force? https://t.co/S1urOuJBe6 https://t.co/S1urOuJBe6  Mark Kelly (@ShuttleCDRKelly) June 19, 2018 June 19, 2018  Kelly elaborated on his position in an interview with MSNBC which took place shortly after Vice President Pence's announcement, saying that he stood by his "dumb idea" remark and that a Space Force would be redundant: Former astronaut Mark Kelly on President Trump's "Space Force" effort: "The only person that Ive heard say this is a fantastic idea is the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Everybody else says its redundant, its wasteful." https://t.co/5WNNuWy4v4 pic.twitter.com/e1c5uocTgv https://t.co/5WNNuWy4v4 pic.twitter.com/e1c5uocTgv  MSNBC (@MSNBC) August 9, 2018 August 9, 2018  Michael Dodge, an assistant professor in the Department of Space Studies at the University of North Dakota, noted Space.com that while other branches of the military (such as the U.S. Air Force) also started out as sectors of larger branches, the existence of the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) would not necessarily be redundant because it would "free up the Air Force to focus on what it does best": Space.com President Donald Trump's administration is pushing to form a U.S. Space Force, a new military branch, but how would that agency differ from the Air Force Space Command, which already oversees much of the country's defense assets in space? The early version of the U.S. Air Force existed as the U.S. Army Air Corps, an aerial warfare sector of the U.S. Army. But as planes continued to advance technologically and find their way into mainstream travel, "Congress decided they needed to have a new branch of the military," Dodge said. The country needed a branch that could "address issues unique to this domain." The Air Force became the fifth branch of the U.S. armed forces in 1947. The Space Force would essentially serve the same purpose, but for space. Dodge said it would "free up the Air Force to focus on what it does best," as the new branch addressed issues unique to space. Dodge noted that this space-oriented, sixth military branch makes the most sense now. " [O]ur assets are so critical in outer space and everything that we do is so dependent on outer space that we need a new force capable of focusing on that domain by itself," he said." Another former astronaut, Buzz Aldrin, offered a different reaction to the new military branch. The Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot was in attendance in June 2018 when President Trump announced his intention to create a Space Force and later tweeted that the idea was "one giant leap" in the right direction: One giant leap in the right direction. #SpaceForce https://t.co/3ZAvB2Oex4 #SpaceForce https://t.co/3ZAvB2Oex4  Buzz Aldrin (@TheRealBuzz) August 10, 2018 August 10, 2018  Davenport, Christian.  "Pence Details Plan for Creation of Space Force in What Would be the Sixth Branch of the Military."
  The Washington Post.  9 August 2018.  Gohd, Chelsea.  "Trump Wants a Space Force  But We Have an Air Force Space Command."
  Space.com.  10 August 2018. Greshko, Michael.  "Would a U.S. Space Force Be Legal? Get the Facts."
  National Geographic.  9 August 2018. Stewart, Phil.  "Going Where No President Has Gone Before, Trump Wants Space Force by 2020."
  Reuters.  9 August 2018.
Hoping to add some political muscle to Republican John Kasichs bid for the White House, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed the Ohio governor for president during a rally in Columbus this week. But did Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican, bend the truth when he described Ohios financial turnaround under Kasich? In hisendorsement speech, Schwarzenegger called Kasich an action hero, saying that when Kasich became governor in 2011, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. We decided to check that claim. Kasich has made similar statements throughout his campaign for president, and highlighted thisfiscal transformationon his website. I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus, Kasich said during the Republican presidential debate in Cleveland last year. The national PolitiFact team took adeeper lookat Kasichs claim last August. Its very similar to Schwarzeneggers claim. Heres what it found: An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this as a hole rather than a deficit. Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. Schwarzenegger used the term deficit, which we interpreted as a minor misstatement rather than an attempt to deceive. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. Ohios Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. The surplus remained above $2 billion this week, said a spokesman for the budget office. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. Schwarzeneggers claim strongly implies Kasich played a central role in the turnaround, though it doesnt explicitly link the two together. But its important to remember that Kasich took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate.As of December, the national unemployment rate was 5 percent and the rate in Ohio was 4.8 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling In his endorsement speech, Schwarzenegger said that when Kasich became governor, there was an $8 billion budget deficit and now theres a $2 billion surplus. Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole  to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the starting point should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich and Schwarzenegger didnt pull that figure out of thin air, though it certainly was high by historical standards. Kasich also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statements are accurate but need additional information, so we rate them Mostly True. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. Claim:  Part of the proceeds from bags of pink and white M&Ms goes to fund breast cancer research.   . Examples:   [Collected on the Internet, 2004] M & M's With A Purpose Send this to everyone you know and get the word out there. There are many women out there who have Breast Cancer. Let's do all we can to support the fight to end this disease.  The makers of M&M's candies have teamed up with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to raise funds through the sale of their new pink & white M&M's candies. Special bags of M&M's will be on sale in September, October and November, 2004. (The bags are clearly marked). For each 8-ounce bag of the special candies sold, the makers of M&M's (Masterfoods) will donate 50 cents to the foundation.  If you pass this e-mail around you will get no money, just the satisfaction of trying to save a life.  Please, pass this to every female (and every male) you know! The next time you want a treat, please pick up a bag now sold in stores nationwide.  You will be donating to a great cause and satisfying your sweet tooth. Please pass on to all your family and friends for who knows  the life you save one day may be your own, or that of a family member or friend. Check it out:  https://www.m-ms.com/us/news/promotions/komen/index.jsp  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] The makers of M&M candies has teamed up with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to raise funds through the sale of their new "pink & white" M&M candies. For each 8-ounce bag of the special candies sold, the makers of M&M (Masterfoods) will donate 50 cents to the foundation. The next time you want a treat, please pick up a bag (now sold in stores nationwide)  you will be donating to a great cause and satisfying your sweet tooth. Please pass on to all your family and friends.  Thank you. Origins:  Recent years have brought an awareness of how widespread is breast cancer, a disease which the American Cancer Society estimates will be diagnosed in 211,300 new cases and cause 40,000   deaths in 2003 alone, making this an illness that is everyone's business. We're happy to report this is one of the rare e-mail exhortations that is truthful. Since 2003, Masterfoods (the parent company of Mars, Inc., the producer of M&M's brand candies) has donated 50 cents for every bag of Pink and White M&M's sold to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, a charitable organization that funds cancer research, education, and screening.  The foundation is very good at what is does and has raised $450 million in the past 21 years, $139 million in 2002 alone. Susan G. Komen  Every year the Masterfoods corporation has promised a minimum donation of $250,000 to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation from the Pink and White M&M's promotion no matter how sales turn out.  The 2003 and 2004 promotions were each capped at a maximum donation of $650,000, so it wasn't strictly true that every time someone bought a bag of the pink and white confections, 50 cents went to the Foundation  those campaigns were effectively over once 1.3 million bags of the pink and white candies were vended, even if some of those bags remained on store shelves afterwards.  The 2005 campaign made no mention of a maximum donation cap, and the Foundation has reported that Masterfoods' 2005 donation totaled an impressive $970,895.   2005 The 2006 Pink and White M&Ms campaign is scheduled to run from August 15 through October 31, 2006, with Masterfoods promising to donate 35 cents for each 14-ounce package and 50 cents for each 21.3-ounce package of the candy sold during that period.  Again, no mention has been  2006 made of a maximum donation cap for this year. This sort of promotion is known as cause-related marketing:  the manufacturer chooses a worthy cause, then ties a particular product to a donation scheme dependent upon sales. Through this promotion, the manufacturer gains far greater publicity for its act of generosity than if it had merely cut a check and handed it over to a charity, the product picks up positive associations in the minds of consumers that last well beyond the campaign, shoppers are moved to select the designated product over that of a competitor's or to purchase more than they otherwise would have, and consumer guilt over "sinful" products (like candy) is counterbalanced by the impression such purchases contribute to the greater good. Cause-related marketing is experiencing a sharp upswing, so expect to see more tie-ins between products and charities on your next few shopping expeditions. Barbara "cause and market effect" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 September 2006    Sources:   Coomes, Mark.  "Tickled Pink to Help."   The [Albany] Times Union.  18 October 2003  (p. D1).     Hoffman, Barbara.  "M&Ms Sweet Charity."   The New York Post.  16 September 2003  (p. 57). A viral post claiming that the logo for the Levi's brand of jean represents a slave being torn apart by horses likely refers to a speech ostensibly delivered by William Lynch on the bank of the James River in Virginia in 1712 to a group of slave owners: MUST READ!!!!! I'm Done Wearing "Levi Jeans". This was just brought to my attention, Back in slavery days they would "Beat" and "Kill" the strongest Black Man On The Plantation. They would do so in front of his family and every other slaves on the plantation. After He'd been beaten, they would tie two "ROPES" one to each of his "LEGS" and those ropes were tied to "TWO HORSES" they would then proceed to beat the horses making them run in opposite directions. Eventually the horses would rip his legs from his body...... The Logo on "Levi Jeans" shows how this process went. You see the two "Slave" owners whipping the horses and the ropes visibly connected from the horses to the mans legs. It's supposed to be amusing and to show how hard it would be to actually tear a pair of these jeans that's why the words "Quality Clothing" appears over both of the horses. Smh I've been wearing these jeans for years, WELL NOT ANYMORE!  While many historians believe that reports of this speech are a hoax, it is widely shared as an accurate depiction of how slave owners attempted to control their slaves: "Take the meanest and most restless (slave), strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male (slaves), the female, and the (slave)infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him a fire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining (slaves)." speech While those tactics might possibly have been employed by some slave owners at the time, no evidence suggests the Levi's jeans logo is an homage to this horrible concept. The primary selling point of the pants manufactured by the company Levi Strauss founded in 1853 was that they were not subject to tearing as other manufacturer's pants were due to the company's use of patented copper rivets to reinforce points of strain where pants typically tore, primarily the pocket corners and the base of the button fly.  The Levi's "two horse" logo was created in 1886 in an attempt to illustrate that most important of selling points to 19th century buyers: created Recognize the animals above? They've been part of the Levi's brand since 1886. But what you see here is something new  the freshest version of what we call the Two Horse patch. When you're a company that prides itself on both heritage and innovation, you want to tell that story as vividly and compellingly as possible. And for us, the Two Horse logo does just that. As the company Historian, let me share a bit of history. In 1873, Jacob Davis and company founder Levi Strauss invented the first blue jeans using their patented process of securing clothing at "points of strain" with rivets. The result: strong jeans that could stand up to the hard work thrown at them by miners and other hard-working individuals of the time. Levi Strauss & Co. knew the patent would expire in 1890, so we needed to quickly make sure consumers understood how good  and strong  the company's jeans were. But how do you tell that story in a way that consumers could quickly grasp? Well, one of the answers was the image of two horses  each pulling in the opposite direction on the same pair of jeans, trying in vain to tear them apart. Given that the Levi Strauss clothing company's original location and market base was an area of the United States where slavery was not legal (the company was founded in California, a free state, which was bordered by other non-slave states and territories), it's unlikely Levi Strauss would have depended upon his customer base's recognizing a supposed Southern plantation slavery practice to understand the brand's logo.  All the more so since the logo wasn't even unveiled until more than twenty years after slavery had been abolished all throughout the United States. Also note that in the Levi's logo, the ropes leading from the horses are attached to the hip area of the pants  if the image were supposed to be a literal graphical representation of pulling a man's legs apart, the ropes would be tied much farther down on the legs  (below the knee, close to the ankle).  As noted above, the image is intended to reinforce Levi Strauss' patented rivet solution to one of the most troublesome points of tearing in pants, the pocket corners (which are up near the hips, not down the leg): Levi Strauss took Facebook in an attempt to dispel this rumor: Facebook   The Levi's "two horse" logo symbolizes nothing more sinister than Levi's original rivet patent and the attendant strength of their jeans. Claim:  The BATF plans to ban "green tip" ammunition due to an executive order issued by President Obama. : : The BATF has proposed a reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from "primarily used for sporting purposes" to"armor piercing ammunition."     : President Obama initiated the proposed reclassification, or codified it through executive order.  Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] Obama just bypassed congress to ban .223 ammo.   Obama illegal executive order to ban AR-15 ammo on March 16th. All Patriots, speak out for 2nd Amendment Rights HERE   Backdoor #Obama# #executive #ammo ban on ar15 in partnership with the #ATF. obviously don't take #oath seriously    @SpeakerBoehner Third Gun Control Exec Order This Year.Of course Congress will just sit on their thumbs and pivot.  Origins:  On 13 February 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) released a document [PDF] that proposed the reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from the category of "primarily used for sporting purposes" to that of "armor piercing ammunition." The 17-page document was titled  PDF "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 'PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)" and uploaded to ATF.gov, in part to enable interested parties to review it and submit comments before 16 March 2015. ATF.gov The proposal cited the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408, known as "LEOPA") and referenced discussions with law enforcement agencies across the country about whether "green tip" ammunition could reasonably be construed an exempt form of sporting ammo under the 1986 guidelines. The publicly available document noted that handguns made to employ the potentially affected ammunition were not available to civilians at the time the exemption was initially granted, and that the ammo type in question did not appear to meet the standard for a sporting purpose exemption:  Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded into SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun. Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a) in both "AR-type" rifles and "AR-type" handguns.  The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machinegun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges. The ATF's proposal was immediately controversial, particularly among gun rights advocates. On 14 February 2015, a guns and ammunition retailer published a blog post titled "Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action": titled It is doubtful that anyone reading this article will truly be surprised that Obama and his cronies in key government posts are trying to once again de facto suppress our Second Amendment rights. They were not able to make it happen through the legislature, but Obama has his phone and his pen. Currently, it seems the President is using both to target gun owners, specifically owners of AR-15s. If you can't outlaw the guns, get rid of the ammunition. The popularity of the AR-15/MSR is the reason it is a target of the Obama administration. The latest assault on the Second Amendment came after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) unexpectedly announced on Friday the 13th that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." Instead of going through the legislative process as intended, President Obama is using his executive authority to once again impose gun control measures. Another blogger published an entry on 19 February 2015 that made similar claims: published President Obama is taking executive action to bypass Congressional authority and the will of the American people. This time the objective is backdoor gun control. Obama is trying to justify the proposal by arguing that the M855 ball, the most widely used .233-caliber round, is "armor-piercing" and cannot be used in handguns, per the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended by Congress in 1986. He is also claiming that the ammunition in the AR-15 and similar rifles puts the lives of police officers at risk. While it's true that the ATF proposed a ban on "green tip" ammunition in February 2015, President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description. The ATF described the proposal as the result of a long-term examination, several years in the making, of whether the ammunition fit the criteria for an exemption for sporting purposes: In light of recent developments in the firearm and ammunition marketplace, ATF sought input from industry, law enforcement organizations, and the general public on the application of the unique "sporting purpose" exemption set forth in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). In November 2012, ATF held four meetings with interested parties representing law enforcement, the firearms and ammunition industries, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, after completion of these meetings, ATF also solicited and accepted comments from the general public through December 31, 2012. All of that input was considered in interpreting the meaning of the statutory language, and developing the framework described below. On 10 March 2015, the ATF released a statement confirming that the reclassification proposal was halted indefinitely due to overwhelming public commentary opposing it: statement Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are "primarily intended for sporting purposes" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework. Last updated:  10 March 2015 Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 On April 17, 2022, the Anxiety Freedom Today Facebook page shared a post with a quote credited to movie actor Denzel Washington, including the words, "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low-key. Privacy is everything." It was somewhat ironic that the post about the state of social media led many of its users to respond with the words, "So true!" Facebook post quote Denzel Washington  Washington has talked before on the subject of the state of social media. It's also entirely possible that Washington might agree with the sentiment of this quote. However, there's no record he ever said these words. The quote was misattributed, meaning that it originally came from someone else. Washington Washington The quote appeared to have originated in a 2016 tweet from author Idil Ahmed on the @idillionaire Twitter account: tweet  This was not the first time this sort of thought was put into words. However, this was the first record of these exact words that we could find. not the first time It wasn't until 2018, two years after @idillionaire's tweet was created, that Washington's name first appeared with the quote. A fake tweet screenshot began going around that purportedly came from the @Denzel Twitter account. However, that account doesn't exist: Washington   This isn't a real tweet. It was likely made using a fake tweet creator website. Also, it could be debated that if Washington were to join Twitter, he probably wouldn't use this profile picture. And as of April 2022, Washington did not appear to have an official Twitter account. An account named @OfficialDenzel was active on Twitter in the past. However, that account is not verified by the social media platform, and it's unclear if it has any affiliation with the actor. Washington verified After the quote about social media appeared in the fake tweet screenshot with Washington's name and face, it was shared as text and in memes: Washington      From these posts and memes, the quote then spread to websites that collect quotes from famous people. For example, Goodreads.com has a page dedicated to the misattributed quote, even though Washington never said the words. (Over the years, we've found that these kinds of websites that collect quotes aren't reliable sources of information, no matter how high they show up in Google search results.) page Washington Again, there's no record of Washington ever saying, "Just because you don't share it on social media, doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." However, as we mentioned, he has given his thoughts before about the state of social media. Washington For example, he once talked to CBN News about the subject in this Facebook video from November 2017: video  In the video, Washington said the following about the potentially negative effects of social media: Washington Turn it off. That's what I'd say. It's hard for young people now because [] they're addicted. If you don't think you're addicted, and I'm talking about anyone, from the highest to the lowest. If you don't think you're addicted, then see if you can turn it off for a week. It got quiet in here, didn't it? Didn't it get real quiet? It's a tool, so we should use it. God has blessed us with free will. Now it's free will magnified. Free will on steroids. You're free to go in any direction you want. It will allow you, and it's not the enemy. It's just a reflection of our own free will. And we all want to be liked. But now we want to be liked by 16 million. And now, some of us will do anything to be liked. We used to do anything to be liked, but it was by the person in front of you. Now it's to be liked by 16 million people that you don't know. We have to ask ourselves what is the long-term if not the short-term effect of too much information. The video, which was also reposted elsewhere, resulted in various users replying (again, on social media) about the effects of social media with the words, "So true!" reposted Washington also spoke about the subject in a YouTube video that was posted in 2017: Washington YouTube video  In sum, while it's true that Washington has spoken before about the potential dangers of social media, there's no record he ever said the following quote: "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you are not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." Washington As a parting thought, we also noticed that the quote was being misattributed with Washington's name on Reddit. At the bottom of the page, the very last comment appeared to receive no attention or upvotes. However, it made a strong point through the use of humor: misattributed Washington Reddit   Ahmed, Idil. Twitter, 5 Nov. 2016, https://twitter.com/idillionaire/status/795016449915879424. Anxiety Freedom Today. Facebook, 17 Apr. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/anxietyfreedomtoday/posts/1894667707400613. CyberGhostUltimate. "Just Because You Dont Share It on Social Media, Doesn't Mean You Are Not up to Big Things. Live It and Stay Low-Key. Privacy Is Everything. - Denzel Washington." R/Privacy on Reddit, 4 July 2021, www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ode5ls/just_because_you_dont_share_it_on_social_media/. Denzel Washington Warns Young People about an Overlooked Danger That Could Be Destroying Them. CBN News, 2017, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10159957363410393. deyavelii. Denzel Washington Speaks on Social Media. YouTube, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ZV2DwgG8E. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) A photograph which appears to show representatives playing solitaire on their laptops during a legislative session has certainly struck a chord among many viewers, undoubtedly because it seemingly confirms a widely held view of elected representatives as paid fat cats frittering away their time at frivolous pursuits rather than engaging in serious governmental problem solving efforts.  The photograph is real, although it has erroneously been attributed to a number of different legislative bodies, from the U.S. Congress to a variety of state legislatures: This picture is worth a trillion $$ This was sent to me showing our Congress at work. It was said that this was while Congress was in session, appears to be true, and that it was during the health care debate. Even if it wasnt during the health care debate, if this is how they spend their time while they are supposed to be deciding on important issues, then I not only want a rebate on my tax dollars, I want to see some new people who actually care about what is happening and are paying close attention to the matter at hand sitting in those seats. Seems like we dont need to be sending them on any more expen$ive vacations, theyre already on one. It seems to me that if all we are doing is paying these congressmen and women a gigantic salary to sit in congressional session and play solitaire or whatever, its time to bring most of them back home by replacement. Democrats, republicans, independents  it makes no difference. The bills theyre passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every key stroke Fire 'em all! Folks we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people that are being paid by our tax dollars. Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc. These are the folks that can't get the budget out by Oct. 1, Seriously!!! So, we've got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news 'reporters' as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo's will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!! The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on 31 August 2009 by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn." Jessica Hill Ms. Hill described the reaction to her photograph as follows: I have received a great deal of mail and even a few calls from people all over the country over the last couple of months about the photograph I have as a lead off image on my member page. Some viewers have even gone so far to say they believe the photograph is not authentic. I take my profession very serious. There is nothing staged or altered in the photograph and it is insulting to me to have been accused of otherwise from people who do not even know me. Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents: apology It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game even for just a few minutes during the final House session on the budget. I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state. My actions were inexcusable. I do want my constituents to know that my poor judgment for a few moments in no way means I ignored your interests in representing you on this very serious matter. Over the past seven months, as a member of the General Assembly's Finance Committee, I have participated fully in the budget process and have played an active role in crafting a budget that provides the necessary services that our communities so desperately need while at the same time minimizing any negative impact on the city of Bridgeport and its people. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I look forward to having the continued privilege of representing you and your interests in Hartford. I thank you in advance for your understanding and have been humbled by those of you who have already expressed your understanding and forgiveness. Brown, DeNeen L.  "For a Day, First Lady Becomes a Lunch Lady."
  The Washington Post.  6 March 2009. Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence What We Eat, Too?"
  Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009. Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."
  The Australian.  7 March 2009.