We're within 600 miles of 60 percent of America. We're in a perfect location.
Location is commonly cited as the most important consideration in buying real estate, and geographic location was the reason that Cleveland once was tagged as being -- or occupying -- the best location in the nation.The slogan was coined in 1944 by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., now part of FirstEnergy Corp., to help build post-war business.The claim was based on the fact that within 500 miles of the city lived half the people of the United States and Canada; that Cleveland was the natural meeting place of iron ore, coal, copper, gypsum, stone, sand and other vital raw materials; and that efficient water, rail, highway and air transportation facilitated delivery and reduced costs, wrote historians Carol Poh Miller and Robert Anthony Wheeler.The slogan has fallen into disuse, but geography hasn't changed.Gov. John Kasich touted the concept this month when he spoke to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce about making Ohio more competitive for business growth:We're to the point now where location matters because logistics matters again, he said. Cost of shipping things matters again. We're within 600 miles of 60 percent of America. We're in a perfect location.Given our Buckeye bias, PolitiFact Ohio wanted to believe it. But we have examined similar claims before and found them wanting. We knew that population has shifted since the 1940s, when the population center point of the entire nation (now in Missouri) was still in Ohio. But we also noted that Kasich moved the measuring stick from 500 miles cited in those previous claims to 600 miles.Using the tools we employed before,we built a map including all U.S. counties whose seats are located within 600 miles of Ohio's borders. We used U.S. Census Bureau data to calculate the aggregate population.We found that 184,900,000 people live within 600 miles of Ohio, or 59.9 percent of the U.S. population of 308.7 million.That's 60 percent, whether you round off by a number that is not statistically significant or factor a margin of error.The 600-mile reach would include nearly all of the Eastern Seaboard, the upper Midwest, much of the Deep South and some states west of the Mississippi River.One additional note: In addition to 60 percent of the U.S. population, Kasichs claim also would encompass the most populous parts of Ontario and Quebec.We rate Kasich's statement as True.
In the final days before the November 2018 elections, social media users in Missouri began posting descriptions and photographs of a billboard that appeared to show President Donald Trump's face accompanied by an excerpt from a well-known Bible verse and a re-working of his 2016 presidential campaign slogan "Make America Great Again":   From a friend -- a billboard spotted outside of St Louis. I don't like using the word "heresy," but I think I'll make an exception in this case. pic.twitter.com/FqaPnBXGHT pic.twitter.com/FqaPnBXGHT  Diana Butler Bass (@dianabutlerbass) November 4, 2018 November 4, 2018  The images prompted expressions of concern by some Christians that the billboard was associating or likening President Trump to Jesus Christ himself, the "Word made flesh" referenced in the Gospel quotation. In its proper context, Chapter 1, Verse 14 of the Gospel of John reads: reads He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The billboard is real, and the photographs of it shared on social media in early November are authentic. The existence of the billboard was verified by St. Louis television station KMOV, which published their own photograph of it, describing the location as being "on Interstate 170 near St. Charles Rock Road," which is around 15 miles north-west of downtown St. Louis, Missouri: KMOV "Make the Gospel Great Again": Large billboard of Trump has St. Louis Co. residents talking https://t.co/l0EDbpWhU2 #KMOV pic.twitter.com/FLIuXd47C9 https://t.co/l0EDbpWhU2 #KMOV pic.twitter.com/FLIuXd47C9  KMOV (@KMOV) November 5, 2018 November 5, 2018  This corroborates the description in Martha Baker's 3 November Facebook post, which stated that the billboard was located "on I-170 (the Innerbelt in St. Louis) between the Rock Road and Page Blvd." Three days before Baker's post, another social media user posted their description of the billboard, expressing their dismay at what they called its "idolatry": This is not a drill. In #STL I just saw a billboard with Trump on it that says, The word made flesh. And Make the gospel great again. I cannot begin to express how livid I am at this level of idolatry. #STL  Rev. Momma (@TheRevMomma) October 31, 2018 October 31, 2018  The billboard is undoubtedly real, though it is not yet clear who paid for it and when it was erected. A spokesperson for DDI Media, the St. Louis company which owns the billboard itself, told us they could not share such information. On 5 November, a Facebook page called "Make the Gospel Great Again" (which is no longer available on the social networking web site) claimed responsibility for the billboard:  claimed ...We met as a team last night to discuss how much hatred weve received for our efforts to encourage fellow believers in holding fast to the faith. We prayed that the facebook page would be a community for fellow Christians to be encouraged at what God is doing in the world and to find out how they could, like our president, be a part of being Gods presence in making America great. But the hateful comments and mean spiritedness from liberals and atheists drowned out the voices of Christians in this country. These reflect the level of unfair deranged media attacks on the President in general and his supporters. Our billboard IS NOT equating Jesus with President Donald Trump. Salvation comes only from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not any man. But God does send his messengers to us, and just as King David liberated the faithful in his day, President Trump is doing this today through his protection of the unborn, defense of our land against foreign invaders and standing up for Israel... The page described its mission statement as follows: "We believe God has given American Christians His earthly messenger - Donald J Trump. We follow his words in faith each day!" statement As far back as 10 October, "Make the Gospel Great Again" posted an image which was almost identical to that ultimately displayed on the St. Louis billboard, and its profile photograph was the same logo which appeared on the billboard (a crucifix with an American flag): posted photograph   We sent a list of questions to an email address associated with the "Make the Gospel Great Again" Facebook page, in order to clarify who was behind it, and verify whether there was a link between it and the St. Louis billboard, but we did not receive any response.  Zotos, Alexis.  "'Make the Gospel Great Again': Large Billboard of Trump Has St. Louis Co. Residents Talking."
  KMOV.  5 November 2018. Updated [7 November 2018]: Added information about the Facebook page "Make the Gospel Great Again." Claim:  The sister ship to the Olympic and Titanic was originally intended to be named the Gigantic.   . Origins:   The   Titanic was originally conceived by the White Star Company as one of a triumvirate of ships intended to vie with Cunard for the trans-Atlantic passenger service business.  White Star couldn't hope to offer ships as fast as Cunard's liners, so they planned to compete by building liners that were both bigger (and hence able to carry more paying passengers and cargo) and more luxurious than Cunard's.  Moreover, since an Atlantic crossing typically took five days in the new class of steamships operated by Cunard and White Star in the first decade of the 20th century, creating a trio of similar ships would allow White Star to offer trans-Atlantic service in both directions on a regular weekly schedule. The planned ships were so large that the shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff, had to allocate space normally used for building three hulls to handle just two of the new behemoths.  Harland and Wolff planned to construct the liners on a staggered schedule so that White Star would have one ready to go into service each spring between 1911 and 1913, and initially everything went according to plan. The keel of the first ship, the Olympic, was laid in December 1908, and the Titanic followed suit three months later.  The Olympic was launched in October 1910, and the Titanic in May 1911.  The  Olympic's maiden voyage took place in June 1911, and the Titanic's in April 1912.  And then ... After the Titanic disaster, the feverish public interest in these massive ocean liners abated, and the third ship of the planned triumvirate, the Britannic, was finally launched (after extensive modifications and with considerably less fanfare than her sisters) in April 1914.  Like her sister ship Titanic, she wasn't around long, though: World War I broke out before the Britannic ever went into passenger service; she was requisitioned by the Royal Navy and pressed into service as a hospital ship; and she struck a mine and sank off the coast of Greece in November  1916.   The magnitude of the Titanic disaster and World War I both overshadowed the short life of the Britannic, and she was gone before many people were even aware she had been built.  Over the years a rumor began to circulate that the Britannic's original name had been the Gigantic, but White Star had thought better of it and quietly changed their minds after the Titanic sank.  White Star maintained that this was not true; they had planned to name the ship Britannic all along and had never considered the name Gigantic. From a purely logical point of view, Gigantic seems the more likely choice.  The names Olympic, Titanic, and Gigantic all evoke a sense of size and strength that Britannic simply does not.  And White Star had considered naming a ship Gigantic on at least one other occasion, as demonstrated by this brief article that appeared 17 September 1892 New York Times: London, Sept. 16  The White Star Company has commissioned the great Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff to build an Atlantic steamer that will beat the record in size and speed. She has already been named the  Gigantic, and will be 700 feet long, 65 feet 7-1/2 inches beam and 4,500 horsepower. It is calculated that she will steam 22 knots an hour, with a maximum speed of 27 knots. She will have three screws, two fitted like Majestic's, and the third in the centre. She is to be ready for sea in March, 1894. We have more than logic and supposition to go by here, however.  Contemporary references publications such as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette as well as a promotional flyer from White Star itself all indicate that White Star did indeed originally have the name  Gigantic in mind, but one could hardly blame them for altering their plans.  After the sinking of the Titanic, passengers were suddenly less concerned with size and luxury than they were with getting to their destinations alive, and the dignified name Britannic conveyed a sense of safety and reliability in a way the attention-grabbing Gigantic could not. Last updated:  18 December 2005    Sources:   Eaton, John P. and Charles A. Haas.  Titanic: Destination Disaster.   Wellingborough, England: Patrick Stephens, 1987.  ISBN 0-85059-868-0  (pp. 54-56). Titanic: Destination Disaster    Heyer, Paul.  Titanic Legacy: Disaster As Media Event and Myth.   Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995.  ISBN 0-275-95352-1  (pp. 20-22). The idea that United States citizens can gain access to secret funds because of a government-created "strawman" is a persistent myth  and one was debunked long ago as a get-rich-quick scheme promulgated by shysters with links to far-right groups: When your birth certificate was monetized and converted into a UNITED STATES Government Bond shortly after your birth by your Mother, your net worth became unlimited, into Billions of Dollars, without your, nor your Mothers, and Fathers, knowledge. When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy in 1933 under the bankruptcy (Straw man) law known as HJR 192, pledged all Americans as collateral (debt slaves) against the national debt to the International Bankers; gave all the land to the international bankers (Federal Reserve Corporation); and confiscated and outlawed all the gold except for one ounce for each person; thus, eliminating the lawful means (Gold and Silver Coins) by which you could legally pay your debt, the UNITED STATES also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay. In 1933, the UNITED STATES Government declared that they would pay all of YOUR debts with the money they receive from your labor, birth certificate, and Social Security registered number by what is known as your Reserve Account worth Billions! The UNITED STATES Corporation Government did that by providing what is known as the Exemption Account. The bankers loan credit and not money, because there has not been any lawful money since 5 June 1933. The Exemption Account is your exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that something is your credit. This secret has been hidden for over 79 years. Your value to society was then and is still calculated using actuarial tables. At birth, average value bonds were created from your birth certificate. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars at your birth when your mother unknowingly gave her baby, you, away to the UNITED STATES Government. These birth certificate bonds were collateralized by your birth certificate and your mothers maiden name under an Act of Congress in 1921. Then your birth certificate bond became a negotiable instrument just like any security instrument under UCC Article 3, code of commercial law in which the world trade falls under. The bonds are hypothecated and traded on the stock market until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes. People all over the world buy and sell your bond every day over the stock markets as investments. All that credit created is technically, and rightfully, yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption Account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number, without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number from the UNITED STATES CORPORATION of America."  The "strawman," the theory states, is an entity created by an alleged 1933 "House Joint Resolution" marking U.S. residents as collateral for the country's loans. Though it is unclear how prevalent it is today, the FBI has classified the idea of birth certificate "redemption" as a common form of bond fraud: classified Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accountsoften referred to as U.S. Treasury Direct Accountsfor all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Trainers and websites will often charge large fees for kits that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failures to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times. This scheme predominately uses fraudulent financial documents that appear to be legitimate. These documents are frequently referred to as bills of exchange, promissory bonds, indemnity bonds, offset bonds, sight drafts, or comptrollers warrants. In addition, other official documents are used outside of their intended purpose, like IRS forms 1099, 1099-OID, and 8300. This scheme frequently intermingles legal and pseudo legal terminology in order to appear lawful. Notaries may be used in an attempt to make the fraud appear legitimate. Often, victims of the scheme are instructed to address their paperwork to the Secretary of the Treasury. Filing these types of "frivolous tax submissions" can incur a $5,000 fine, though authorities give offenders 30 days to retract the documents. The Treasury Department's office of the Inspector General published an example of a "sight draft" while warning that they were being used "in an attempt to pay for everything from cars to child support": incur warning  The Treasury also provided us with an April 2009 guidance they sent to financial institutions advising them how to report loan modification scams, which included a description of a hidden "account" being used as a bogus payment: guidance A homeowner maintains that he/she does not need to pay a mortgage because the loan contract is invalid, or the customer attempts to pay with a bogus sight draft, Federal Reserve Bank/Treasury letter, or check that accesses a Treasury Direct Account. Such homeowners may be committing fraud or may have been duped by individuals who claim government-related contracts are illegitimate. Other homeowners may have unsuspectingly paid for illegitimate or bogus pay-off documents. A spokesperson for the Treasury told us on 17 January 2017 that these types of scams have not been a "recent issue of concern" for the department's investigators. However, they are still reported to its financial crimes enforcement division. reported The Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 report that the redemption "movement" can be traced back to a South Dakota man, Roger Elvick, who has ties to the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist organizations: traced Elvick first started spreading his crackpot vision in the 1980s, when he was the national spokesperson for Committee of the States, a white supremacist group Elvick started with William Potter Gale, who had previously founded the Posse Comitatus, a violent anti-Semitic organization. By 1990, Redemption groups advised by Elvick were active in 30 states and several provinces of Canada, and had tried to pass more than $15 million in bad checks. Elvick was eventually convicted of personally passing more than $1 million in sight drafts, and, in a separate case, of filing fraudulent IRS forms. He spent most of the 1990s in federal prison. Elvick was indicted again in Ohio in 2003 and charged with corruption, extortion, and forgery, but his courtroom behavior derailed his trial: During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors by changing his plea to guilty. The inspector general's office for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, noted the use of "UCC" (Uniform Commercial Code) in a 2015 bulletin concerning right-wing sovereign citizen groups, pointing out members commonly use the term in fraudulent documents: bulletin sovereign citizen  FBI.  "Common Fraud Schemes  Redemption/Strawman/Bond Fraud."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Legal Information Institute.  "26 U.S. Code  6702  Frivolous Tax Submissions."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Treasury.  "Bogus Sight Drafts/Bills of Exchange Drawn on the Treasury."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Southern Poverty Law Center.  "His 'Straw Man' Free, A Scammer Finds the Rest of Him Isn't."   27 July 2005. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  "Integrity Bulletin."   Summer 2015. Alexander, Dean C.  "The Sovereign Citizen Movement: Threats and Responses."   Security Magazine.  1 June 2016. Shortly after Donald Trump asked his supporters on to raise their hands and pledge that they would vote for him in the 2016 Presidential election(drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany), an image purportedly showing President Obama making a similar requestfrom a crowd began circulating online. While the image is real, it does not show President Obama asking his supporters to pledge allegiance to him. This photograph was takenin Columbus, Ohio in November 2008, and shows a crowd raising their hands after Obama asked how many people in the audience made less than $250,000 per year: taken People raise their hands as Democratic presidential nominee U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) asks the audience how many of them make less then $250,000 dollars a year, as he speaks during a campaign rally at Ohio State House November 2, 2008 in Columbus, Ohio. Obama continues to campaign against Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as Election Day draws near. A video on PBS showed President Obama asking the audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000:   Let me just see a show of hands. How many people make less than $250,000 a year? Raise your hands. All right, now, I want you to be very clear here. Here are the facts. There was another report in the New York Times this morning that laid out the fact that I give much more relief to middle-income people and also that I will not raise taxes for anybody making under $250,000 a year, not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. The middle class doesn't need a tax hike. I want to give you a tax cut. So don't be confused by what John McCain says. My tax rates will be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. Scam:  Card-skimming thieves can make fraudulent purchases with information read from RFID-enabled credit cards carried in pockets and purses.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] Just received an email concerning "Credit Card Pickpocketing". It was broadcast from Memphis WREG TV.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO I read this about a couple weeks ago, and then checked my cards for the little "WiFi Signal Icon" on each one.  I found none w/that signal on them, but I was determined to watch for it when my cards came in on renewals. Well, yesterday I got my CHASE SLATE card AND THERE IT WAS!  My first time to see it. I'll not activate that card after seeing this.  I guess I'll go to the bank and see if I can replace it w/a non wi fi (Radio Frequency Card)....? Thought all my contacts ought to see this if you've not already seen this demo....wow!  Origins:  In December 2010, Memphis television station WREG aired an "Electronic Pickpocketing" piece on the potential risks posed by "contactless" credit/debit/ATM cards containing embedded RFID (radio frequency identification technology) chips.  Such chips encode basic information (e.g., account numbers, expiration dates) that can be picked up by point-of-sale RFID readers, eliminating the need for cards to be physically handled or swiped.  One possible drawback to this technology is unauthorized persons might use RFID readers of their own to surreptitiously glean that same information, as demonstrated in WREG's report, which featured Walt Augustinowicz of Identity Stronghold using a card reader and a netbook computer to engage in card "skimming"  picking up account information off RFID-enabled cards carried in the pockets and purses of random passers-by on the street.  A few days after it broadcast the original "Electronic Pickpocketing" story, WREG reported the piece had gone  Electronic Pickpocketing  viral, racking up 1.2 million views in just three days. Despite all the publicity WREG's report garnered, the concept of RFID-enabled credit card theft was hardly a new one.  Various news, technical, and security  outlets have been reporting (and demonstrating) for several years the potential risk that information transmitted wirelessly by RFID-enabled cards might be picked up by eavesdropping thieves using relatively cheap equipment.  But although (as demonstrated in WREG's piece) it's certainly possible for interlopers to read pieces of information from some contactless cards under some circumstances, the extent to which this activity might be used to facilitate theft is currently difficult to gauge. reporting As the WREG report noted, representatives from the Identity Theft Resource Center said "they've never seen a case of RFID skimming used to steal information,"  but it's also the case that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for skimming victims to identify exactly how their card information had been stolen. Nonetheless, other analysts have offered reasons why they believe card skimming may not be nearly as much of a threat as some reports have made it sound:  The data streams emitted by contactless cards don't include such information as PINs and CVV (Card Verification Value) security codes  or, in newer cards,  customer names  and without those pieces of information a card skimmer should not be able to utilize the stolen card numbers to print up counterfeit cards or engage in Card Not Present (CNP) transactions: CNP None of the cards transmits the additional number on the front or back, known as the card validation code, that some businesses require for online purchases. [C]ompany representatives argued [that] the process of making purchases with the cards involves verification procedures based on powerful encryption that make each transaction unique. Most cards, they said, actually transmit a dummy number that does not match the number embossed on the card, and that number can be used only in connection with the verification "token," or a small bit of code, that is encrypted before being sent. "It's basically useless information," said David Bonalle, vice president and general manager for advanced payments at American Express. "You can't steal that data and just play it back and expect that transaction to work." However, some merchants are not assiduous about requiring extra levels of security information from their customers beyond credit card number and expiration date, and security providers contend that card skimmers can still find plenty of places to make purchases with nothing more than 16-digit account numbers and expiration dates.  Although some contactless cards can be read from as far as a few feet away, refinements to the RFID technology employed in newer cards limits their transmission range to a much smaller distance.   Although RFID-enabled cards may have originally transmitted their information in plain text, newer contactless cards are adding encryption to the data streams and thus cannot be read directly by ordinary card readers.  (Encryption requires additional processing time, however, so businesses that place a premium on speed may still eschew its use in their card processing systems.)  Card skimming generally works when the victim is carrying only a single contactless card; otherwise, the transmissions from multiple cards can create a jumbled, unintelligible stream. It remains the case that cardholders are not liable for the fraudulent use of their credit card information, but consumers who are extra cautious have the option of investing in secure sleeves that shield the RFID signals transmitted by their cards from electronic eavesdroppers. On 17 February 2016, an updated version of the rumor began making the rounds, this time accompanied by a photo of a man holding a Point of Sale (PoS) device: version   In theory, all that a thief would need to do would be to enter a price lower than 30, then tap the device against people's pockets and they would be charged. Almost all new bank cards and credit cards issued in the UK now offer the chips, which allow users to authorise small transactions without entering a PIN code. Facebook user R Jarvis claims he saw the alleged scammer at work, saying, "So this guy was spotted wandering round with a Point of Sale (POS) device. All he has to do is key in a price less than 30 and then touch the device on the pocket that contains your wallet." However, the photo that went along with this claim wasn't taken by Paul Jarvis. It appeared in an 8 February 2016 article about possible electronic pickpocketing in Russia. In any case, "electronic pickpocketing," with or without Point of Sale devices, remained rare as of 2016, but RFID sleeves for cards remained readily available for those with lingering concerns. claim article available Last updated:  17 February 2016     Sources:   Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  3 December 2010.     Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing Goes Viral."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  6 December 2010.     Schwartz, John.  "Researchers See Privacy Pitfalls in No-Swipe Credit Cards."   The New York Times.  23 October 2006.     Vamosi, Robert.  "RFID-Enabled Credit Card Theft."   CNET.com.  27 October 2006.     KKCO-TV [Grand Junction, CO].  "Protecting Your Identity Against Credit Card Hackers."   15 May 2012. Some critics of Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded with a measure of ridicule and criticism in the Spring of 2019, after remarks she made about the introduction of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which imposed a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote: wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., might want to brush up on some history after asserting, incorrectly, that Republicans in Congress amended the Constitution to kick President Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of office. "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," Ocasio-Cortez said [March 29] during a night hall event with MSNBC with Chris Hayes. According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which passed in 1947. The text of the amendment states, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. FDR died in 1945, meaning he was dead for a full two years before presidential term limits were implemented. That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office." re-published The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing: writing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be getting As in social media  but shes getting an F in basic history. The Bronx-Queens Democrat flunked 20th century world events last week when she claimed during a town-hall meting [sic] that the Constitution was changed to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from being re-elected. In fact, he died two years before the amendment to which she was referring was passed and six years before it was ratified by the requisite number of states. A video clip of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks was prominently shared on Twitter by Tom Elliott, who added: "According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: 'They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.' (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947)." According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected." (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy  Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019 March 31, 2019   Critics of Ocasio-Cortez pounced on her remarks as evidence of a purported lack of historical knowledge on her part. However, the Congresswoman's subsequent comments on the subject, along with clarification provided by her spokesperson, indicated the intended meaning of her remarks was that the catalyst behind the development of the two-term limit (which was ultimately enshrined in the 22nd amendment) had been Roosevelt's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s, and not that the introduction of the 22nd amendment (as opposed to Roosevelt's death) prevented what would have been his fourth re-election. The Congresswoman's remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the "Green New Deal," a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy. plan Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, asked Ocasio-Cortez what lessons she had learned from the "New Deal," the series of economic projects FDR introduced in the 1930s with the intention of helping the U.S. economy to recover from the Great Depression, and the program to which the "Green New Deal" is an allusion. One of the points Ocasio-Cortez made in response to that question was to highlight the importance of Democratic success in facilitating the passage of legislation that introduced New Deal programs. Here's a (lightly edited) transcript of that segment, which can be viewed below: Paul:...What are the lessons from the New Deal that we can bring in today? Ocasio-Cortez: There's [sic] a lot. One is, you know when we talk, when we start picking apart the problem of political will --you know, "Technologically possible, is it politically feasible?" -- one of the big parts of political will is fear, especially fear within our own party. "If we do this, if we are a little too bold, we will lose our majorities, we will lose everything." And it is a difficult question because the House has been gerrymandered in ways that are extremely difficult. But I think there's [sic] a couple of lessons. One is that, when we look into our history, when our [Democratic] party was boldest -- the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on -- we had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate, we carried the presidency. They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected. And there were so many extraordinary things that were happening in that time that were uniting working people, and so that, I think, is one of the encouraging lessons ...  The point Ocasio-Cortez was making in that section of the interview was to highlight the role that electoral success for Democrats -- not least of which was FDR's repeated presidential victories during the 1930s and 1940s -- played in facilitating the introduction of major reforms such as the New Deal programs. FDR was first elected in 1932, then re-elected three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. To illustrate the extent of FDR's power and popularity at that time, the Congresswoman said: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." The manner in which she phrased that statement ("They had to ... to make sure") indicated, on its face, that Ocasio-Cortez was saying that the introduction of the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent FDR from being re-elected a fourth time. It is therefore understandable that some commentators seized upon her remarks and made the rather obvious point that the 22nd Amendment was not required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment was ratified and came into effect. (FDR died two years before the U.S. Congress passed the amendment, but it was not implemented until it was ratified by the requisite number of states six years after his death, contrary to the Washington Examiner's inaccurate statement that he had died "two years before presidential term limits were implemented.") However, that was not the intended meaning of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, according to a spokesperson for the Congresswoman. The spokesperson told us it was "pretty clear" that her intention was simply to point out that FDR's repeated re-elections, and the sustained implementation of his policy agenda, had been the catalyst for Republican efforts to introduce a term limit on the U.S. presidency, a plan that began while FDR was still alive. That this was Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the "full story" behind her remarks, which reported that: tweeted article The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried, with both Fox News and the Washington Examiner running the story and calling Ocasio-Cortezs claims false. However, some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelts monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death ... The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortezs back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy." It is unquestionably true that efforts to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency began before FDR's death and were intensified by his unprecedented third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944. FDR's decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie's platform that year. In a speech accepting his party's nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: "I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson." speech In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put "The Third Term" at the top of a list of major issues, writing: "Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention ... and gave as an excuse I was drafted.' Are we Americans that gullible? ... Let us say together, 'There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term.'" advertisement   (In order to avoid the controversy of actively seeking to break the two-term tradition, FDR coyly declined to openly declare himself a candidate in 1940, and instead his supporters arranged for him to be "drafted" as a nominee by delegates at the 1940 Democratic National Convention.) In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that "When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less." statement Before FDR's third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed," adding, "I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment." speech FDR won his fourth presidential election that year, but he died just five months later, in April 1945, leaving Vice President Harry Truman to serve out nearly all of what would have been his fourth term. After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.) ratify The 22nd amendment states, in part: states No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC on 29 March was that, "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." It is understandable that some of her critics viewed this as her saying that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, an assertion which would make no sense because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment entered into force. However, according to clarification provided to Snopes by her spokesperson, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning was simply to point out that the catalyst for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution and impose a two-term limit had been FDR's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s. As we have shown, that is certainly true, and calls for such a constitutional amendment began to intensify even before FDR's second re-election in 1940, almost five years before his death. Gage, John.  "AOC Flubs History of FDR& and Change to Constitution."
  The Washington Examiner.  31 March 2019. Moore, Mark and Nikki Schwab.  "Ocasio-Cortez Falsely Says GOP Changed Constitution to Block FDR from Re-Election."
  The New York Post.  1 April 2019. Daly, Matthew.  "Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change."
  Associated Press.  7 February 2019. Paton, Callum.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Attacked on Twitter for Constitutional Mistake -- But Here's the Full Story."
  Newsweek.  1 April 2019. Willkie, Wendell.  "Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination in Elwood, Indiana."
  The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara.  17 August 1940. The Columbus Telegram.  "Americanism Must Live! [Republican Election Advertisement]."
  1 November 1940. Associated Press.  "Willkie Urges 2-Term Limit for Presidency."
  The [Wilimington] News Journal.  4 November 1940. United Press International.  "Dewey Declares Fourth Term Freedom Threat."
  The Salt Lake Tribune.  1 November 1944. Williams, Tom.  "Anti-3rd Term Amendment Ratified as Nevada Casts Required 36th State Vote."
  The Terre Haute Star.  27 February 1951. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.  "U.S. Constitution, 22nd Amendment."
  Accessed 2 April 2019. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. As President Donald Trumpstrade warwages on, we decided to check in on the most affected sectors. U.S. Agriculture Department Secretary Sonny Perdue said farmers, who will receive $12 billion in aid, were particularly affected by the dispute. Americas hard-working agricultural producers have been treated unfairly by Chinas illegal trading practices and have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs, Perdue said in a USDApress releaseon July 26. Well leave aside the question of whether the retaliatory tariffs are any more illegal than the initial U.S. tariffs on imports. But we were interested in the second half of his claim: Have agricultural producers taken a disproportionate hit? The Agriculture Department pointed out that 37 percent of U.S. exports facing retaliatory tariffs are agricultural exports. Those are the tariffs as of July 31, 2018 coming from China, the European Union, India, Turkey, Mexico and Canada. Thats disproportionate to the total goods the United State exports: about 10 percent are agricultural goods, according to the USDAs 2017 data. Its hard to measure the exact numbers, though. Thats because tariffs are listed individually by the governments that issue them (in this case, not the United States), and because the United States doesnt keep close tabs on exports. USDA calculated the 37 percent figure using official import customs data from the retaliating partner through a private third party, Global Trade Atlas. Export data is notoriously bad, Laura Baughman, president of the Trade Partnership, told us in July. Its inaccurate because people dont necessarily report it very carefully, since you are not assessing tariffs on exports. However, the agricultural industry is on average much more dependent on world markets than other industries, according to David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Exports comprise 10 percent of total GDP in the United States, whereas they comprise about 20 percent of GDP in the American agricultural sector. That fraction iseven higherfor crops like cotton (76 percent is exported), soybeans (50 percent) and wheat (46 percent), according to USDA. About 16 to 17 percent of exports to China are agricultural goods, so any conflict with China (like the ongoing one) takes a heavy toll on agriculture, Laborde said. He calculated that 86.8 percent of agricultural exports to China are impacted by retaliatory tariffs while 36.9 percent of the non-agricultural exports are covered. Farmers face two additional aggravators: their products are easily replaceable and theyre an easy political target. One ton of U.S. soybeans is a nearly perfect substitute to one ton of Brazilian soybeans, Laborde pointed out. But high-tech medical equipment (another type of products exported to China) is difficult to substitute, so Chinese consumers are more willing to endure the tariff. And from a political economy point of view, Laborde said it made sense for China to maintain pressure on farmers in particular, as a core constituency for the Trump administration. Perdue said, Americas hard-working agricultural producers  have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs. Its difficult to measure the impact of tariffs on the economy and particularly hard to measure the impact of retaliatory tariffs on exports. That said, the economy sets up agricultural producers to bear the brunt of tariffs. Exports are doubly important for the agricultural sectors GDP as for the countrys GDP. USDA calculated that 37 percent of exports facing tariffs are agricultural goods, whereas agricultural goods comprise 10 percent of total exports. We rate this statement Mostly True.