That Time Chelsea Clinton Tweeted 'Happy New Year' to the Church of Satan
Twitter threads sometimes make for strange bedfellows. With more than 2 million followers, Chelsea Clintoncertainly qualifies as an experienced tweeter, yet in January 2018 she found herself in the awkward position of having to publicly deny that she's a Satan worshiper all because she jumped into a Twitter thread to lend moral support to Chrissy Teigen. Chelsea Clinton Chrissy Teigen Our cautionary tale begins with a 30 December attack on Teigen by a "Pizzagate" conspiracy theorist bent on implicating the supermodel in an imagined pizza parlor pedophile ring run by and for highly placed Democrats (such as Chelsea Clinton's parents). Pizzagate Teigen found the smear quite disturbing, writing: Alright. I debated saying something about this but I'm pretty disturbed over here. The fact that there are people with these...thoughts...is really scary. pic.twitter.com/9OtWKHxUgR pic.twitter.com/9OtWKHxUgR  christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) December 30, 2017 December 30, 2017  Yeah yeah it's "just Twitter" but I'm pretty sure this *sick* person is saying we are darksided pizzagate pedophiles who traffic our daughter. Ummmmm this is really scary shit.  christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) December 30, 2017 December 30, 2017 Enter Chelsea Clinton, one of Chrissy Teigen's many Twitter followers. She sent Teigen a message of support and encouragement: Chrissy, sending you & beautiful Luna a huge hug. It is awful & never ok when people threaten or demean any child. I've lost count of the Twitter accounts who've threatened Charlotte with #FGM. While I never bother to report threats against me, I now report every one against her. #FGM  Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) December 31, 2017 December 31, 2017 Whereupon the thread turned into something of a free-for-all. A random troll using the name "Rogue Hooters Staff" (account since deleted) hurled an obscenity at Clinton:   Someone who witnessed this exchange notified Hooters (a restaurant chain most notable for the skimpy attire of its female waitstaff and passable wings) of the bogus account, prompting the official (verified) Hooters account to tweet a disavowal, in turn prompting Clinton  trust us, this will all make sense as you read through the rest of the thread below to tag the Church of Satan: Church of Satan   There are two ways to take that last tweet ("It's been so long! Happy New Year!"). One is in the spirit in which it was obviously intended,namely as a jocular, tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of the absurdity of sharing a Twitter thread with the likes of @Hooters and @ChurchofSatan. The other is to pretend it might actually mean Clinton is a devil worshiper. A number of scornful tweets went the latter route, stating or implying that Clinton worships Satan. One example (since deleted) said, "At least @ChelseaClinton is open about worshiping #Satan. #ChurchOfSatan If only @HillaryClinton could be as honest." Clinton replied with what amounted to a denial: Oh goodness gracious. We can be civil, cheerful, respectful to & friends with people who don't share our religious beliefs. Sometimes, we even marry them. I'm a Methodist & my husband is Jewish, thank you for asking. A very happy New Year to you Rhonda! https://t.co/8UH9SP8EWO https://t.co/8UH9SP8EWO  Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 3, 2018 January 3, 2018 However, the reminder that she, like her mother, is a lifelong Methodist failed to hush that rather large subset of the Twitterverse devoted to spreading Clinton hatred. A former vice presidential candidate chimed in, along with others: Nope. Sadly, this is not a joke. https://t.co/74OU4tElX5 https://t.co/74OU4tElX5  Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) January 4, 2018 January 4, 2018  If you have to deny worshiping Satan, you more than likely worship Satan. #QAnon #PizzaGate #FollowTheWhiteRabbit #Pedogate https://t.co/BeLBU9ECPu #QAnon #PizzaGate #FollowTheWhiteRabbit #Pedogate https://t.co/BeLBU9ECPu  JT - MAGA ??? (@jt_maga) January 4, 2018 January 4, 2018  Chelsea upside cross sways pics for years and all, thst Chrissy who goes to spirit cooking and your mom too; just talking to these people Church of Satan and owl people is too much! #sickclubofpedos #PEDOgate #QANON #FOLLOWTHEWHITERABBIT #THESTORM pic.twitter.com/Pmm69AnmIj #sickclubofpedos #PEDOgate #QANON #FOLLOWTHEWHITERABBIT #THESTORM pic.twitter.com/Pmm69AnmIj  (Jamie)J.A.L.F.T (@jametteriley) January 3, 2018 January 3, 2018  @ChelseaClinton Like mother like daughter. Caught lying and you continue lying.You tweeted a message to the Church of Satan on New Year. https://t.co/wgCl1Ob4qJ @ChelseaClinton https://t.co/wgCl1Ob4qJ  mzaz (@mzaz86442) January 5, 2018 January 5, 2018 We can't help but note the concerted effort to plug Chelsea Clinton's alleged Satanic sympathies into pre-existing narratives impugning the entire Clinton family. Consider the recurring hashtags in the tweets on this subject, which include #QAnon, #Pizzagate, #FollowTheWhiteRabbit and #Pedogate. In certain circles these signify conspiracy theoriesaccusing the Clinton family of all manner of "deep-state" shenanigans, from assassination plots to election rigging to pedophile rings. theories Some of the critical tweets allude to something called "spirit cooking." This refers to a series of performance art events mentioned in WikiLeaks e-mails, which were pounced upon by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Clintons and their inner circle practice occult rituals (although in reality it was nothing of the kind). spirit cooking nothing Others revisit low-resolutionimagesfloating around the Internet for years allegedly showing Chelsea Clinton wearing a necklace with an "inverted" or "upside-down" cross  supposedly a sign of Satan worship. When we asked a Clinton spokesperson about it, however, we were told that she owns no such piece of jewelry. Clinton occasionally wears a Greek (equal-sided) cross that could conceivably be mistaken for (or manipulated in images to look like) an inverted one. images We asked the spokesperson, point-blank, if Chelsea Clinton is a Satan worshiper. The answer, unsurprisingly, was no. The spokesperson confirmed that Clinton is a Methodist, and could in fact be foundas recently as New Year's Eve 2018 attending her non-Satanic Methodist church services in New York City. We also checked in with a representative of the Church of Satan, the Rev. Raul Antony, who confirmed an important piece of background information, namely that prior to the Chrissy Teigen Twitter thread there had never been any direct contact between Chelsea Clinton and the Church of Satan. As Clinton said in one of her tweets, "In 2017, @ChurchofSatan & I were put on a few threads together." Antony told us they were tagged into those threads by Pizzagate conspiracy theorists. We asked him to address the widespread assumption that members of the Church of Satanwhich, to be clear, is a 50-year-old organization distinct from all other groups and individuals purporting to identify themselves as "Satanic"actually worship the devil. organization "No," he said. "We reject all theism and recognize all gods and religions [including Satan] to be man-made social institutions. Still, we find symbols and religion to be an important part of the human experience and embrace the symbol of Satan as the representation of carnality, individualism, and rational self-interest." We thought we might as well ask him if Chelsea Clinton is a Satanist. "No," he said. "She's a Methodist." Kelly, Tiffany. "'Follow the White Rabbit' Is the Most Bonkers Conspiracy Theory You Will Ever Read."
The Daily Dot. 20 November 2017. Martineau, Paris. "The Story Is the New Pizzagate - Only Worse."
New York Magazine. 19 December 2017. Church of Satan. "History of the Church of Satan."
Accessed 1 January 2018.
Claim:  Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Origins:  An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan:   He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.   How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.   A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.   Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. confirmed The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one: Last updated:  8 January 2015 In June 2022, many people expressed outrage over the claim that Disney had supposedly "canceled" actor Tim Allen, who voiced the character "Buzz Lightyear" in the original "Toy Story" movies. According to the rumor, the entertainment giant refused to cast Allen in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie due to his conservative political views.  Disney Here's how the conservative news outlet "Townhall" framed the issue: "Townhall" framed the issue  While it was true that actor Chris Evans  not Allen  was voicing Buzz in "Lightyear," Disney had not cut ties with Allen. In fact, Allen and Disney are currently working together on another project, as of this writing. Furthermore, there were several story reasons (not political ones) for a new actor to voice "Buzz Lightyear" in the 2022 movie. Chief among them: "Lightyear" focused on a fictional human character, while the "Toy Story" movies featured a fictional "Buzz Lightyear" toy. Allen In 1995, Allen debuted as the voice behind "Buzz Lightyear," an action-figure toy that came to life when humans left the room, in the Pixar movie "Toy Story." In the Pixar universe, this action-figure toy was based on a character from an action movie. Pixar's 2022 film "Lightyear" is that in-universe action movie. Sound a little confusing? In the opening moments of "Lightyear," the premise of the movie is explained like this: "In 1995, Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie." premise of the movie is explained like this In other words, the movie "Lightyear" did not feature the fictional toy that Allen voiced in the original "Toy Story" movies. Evans was voicing a new iteration of the "Buzz Lightyear" character. "Lightyear" producer Galyn Susman explained: explained 'Tim Allen is Buzz Lightyear the toy, and hes the embodiment of Buzz Lightyear the toy. We werent making a Toy Story movie. Were making Buzz Lightyears movie, the Lightyear movie. And so first and foremost, we just needed to have a different person playing that Lightyear, separate from the toy.' In the real world, we can compare this scenario to Batman action figures and Batman movie stars. Actor Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," but that doesn't mean he provided the voice for the latest "Batman" toys on store shelves. In fact, while Allen's co-star Tom Hanks voiced the character of "Woody" in the "Toy Story" movies, it was actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures.  Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures  Allen provided the voice for some "Buzz Lightyear" toys, but so have a number of other entertainers  such as actor Pat Fraley. Allen provided the voice Fraley said in a 2019 interview: said in a 2019 interview So, for nine years it was one of the most lucrative roles I ever did. I did all the toys and there were a lot of them. Thats how that went down the pike. Eventually, they got rid of me and I figured they found someone better than me. I was a close match but not perfect. No, my replacement wasnt better than me but I bet he was cheaper. So, why didnt Tim Allen do the voice of Buzz Lightyear for all of those toys instead? Tim was too busy. He had a show on TV and was doing movies. He had Home Improvement and those Santa Clause movies at the time. Home Improvement Santa Clause We reached out to Disney to see if Allen was voicing new "Buzz Lightyear" toys, and we will update this article accordingly.  As this rumor circulated on social media, many people claimed that Allen was the victim of "cancel culture" and that Disney was refusing to work with the actor due to his conservative politics. But that wasn't the case. In fact, as of this writing, Allen and Disney were working together on an upcoming television series based on "The Santa Clause" movies.  conservative politics working together  Here's a synopsis of the new Disney+ series: synopsis of the new Disney+ series In the Disney+ series, Scott Calvin is on the brink of his 65th birthday and realizing that he cant be Santa forever. Hes starting to lose a step in his Santa duties, and more importantly, hes got a family who could benefit from a life in the normal world, especially his two kids who have grown up at the Pole. With a lot of elves, children, and family to please, Scott sets out to find a suitable replacement Santa while preparing his family for a new adventure in a life south of the pole. While Allen did not voice Buzz Lightyear in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie, there was no evidence that Disney refused him the role, or ended its working relationship with Allen, because of his political beliefs. Rather, the film featured a version of the fictional character that was different from the original "Buzz Lightyear" figure in the "Toy Story" films, and a producer said they "needed to have a different person" playing the 2022 movie's version. Also, Allen was working with Disney on a separate project. Buzz Lightyear Voices (Toy Story). Behind The Voice Actors, https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/characters/Toy-Story/Buzz-Lightyear/. Accessed 16 June 2022. Weary Lightyear Director Tries Once Again to Explain How Real Lightyear Is or Isnt. The A.V. Club, 16 June 2022, https://www.avclub.com/lightyear-director-angus-maclane-describes-how-real-the-1849068927. Cavacini, Michael. Legendary Pat Fraley Tells All. Michael Cavacini, 1 Nov. 2019, https://michaelcavacini.com/2019/11/01/legendary-pat-fraley-tells-all/. Johnson, Allen. Why Lightyear Director Recast Iconic Role of Buzz with Chris Evans for New Pixar Film. Datebook SF Chronicle, https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/why-lightyear-director-recast-iconic-role-of-buzz-with-chris-evans-for-new-pixar-film. Accessed 16 June 2022. Lightyear Creator Breaks Down Why Tim Allen Wasnt Asked To Return In New Pixar Movie - The Illuminerdi. 15 June 2022, https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2022/06/15/lightyear-why-tim-allen-recast/. Scott, A. O. Lightyear Review: Infinite Buzz. The New York Times, 14 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/movies/lightyear-review.html. Tim Allen Returns to the Red Suit for The Santa Clause, a Limited Series for Disney+. D23, 14 Jan. 2022, https://d23.com/just-announced-tim-allen-returns-to-the-red-suit-for-the-santa-clause-a-limited-series-for-disney/. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." A big part of President Barack Obama's first State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, 2010, focused on the economy.To set the stage, he said his predecessor was largely responsible for the country's fiscal shape.At the beginning of the last decade ... America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion, Obama said. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.We've checked several claims to this effect in the last year,most recently one by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Indeed, we found that the government was enjoying a surplus of about $236 billion circa 2001. Later, when Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported the deficit was over $1.2 trillion. A good chunk of the deficits racked up by the Bush administration came from tax cuts, the war in Iraq and actions that Bush and a Democratic Congress took to prop up the economy right before he left office.In the same report, the CBO projected a 10-year deficit of about $3.1 trillion. But Obama said $8 trillion, based on budget numbers published by the White House Office of Management and Budget shortly after Obama took office.Why the discrepancy? When we checked the similar claim by Axelrod, we spoke with Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition. He said it has to do with how the two offices estimate the future. The CBO bases its projections on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2010 and that a patch to fix the alternative minimum tax would expire, among other things. The White House does not; instead, it assumes that nothing changes in current law.So, Obama's overall point is correct that the government was enjoying a substantial surplus when Bush took office and had a big deficit when he departed; he's spot on about the surplus Bush began with. He's also correct about the deficit at the end of Bush's presidency, but there are two different ways to measure the 10-year projection when Bush left office. The CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. So given that discussion, we'll take Obama down a notch to Mostly True. Claim:  Transcript reproduces a speech given by Texas governor Rick Perry. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] Thought this was interesting. It is food for thought..... It would be nice if Rick Perry really is that strong of a Christian.  From   TEXAS                TO THE WHITEHOUSE! Below are his remarks in Longview.  Be sure and readwhere he stands and where his heart is.  In 1977, I had left the Air Force and moved home. I'll be real honest with you  I was a bit lost spiritually, and I really didnt know what I wanted to do with my life. So I moved in with my mother and father. Now that's a real trip! I had been an aircraft commander, traveling all around the world, seeing amazing places that a boy from Paint Creek, Texas, had never even dreamed were out there before. I had this great epiphany during my mid twenties. As I had lived in Europe and South America and the Middle East, I saw all these different countries with different forms of government. I was actually paying attention to the dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies, democratic states, etc. I started making the connection between how those people lived and the form of government they had. It was most interesting for me, as I'd never really given that much attention to our form of government in America . I'd taken for granted this extraordinary country we live in, but I came to realize that America is really a special place. I also made the calculation that inside that really cool place was this incredible place called Texas! At twenty-five, twenty-six years old, it dawned on me what an incredible country we live in, and that the vast majority of the people take it for granted. They abuse the privilege of living in a free country. They don't realize how so many other people live around the world. But with that knowledge, I went home and lived with my mom and dad. I moved back into my old room. At eighteen years old, I left to go to my beloved Texas A&M University. Nine years later, I came back into my old room. I swear to God, I know mother cleaned it, but it looked exactly like it did the day I left. It had my football number on the door, and it had the all-star football game program still stuck on the bulletin board. It was an eerie moment for me to move back home. My dad was pretty sure I was the same stupid eighteen-year-old that had left. I was pretty sure he hadn't gotten any smarter either. So we went through this really brutal period of time of finding our comfort zone. But God was dealing with me. At twenty-seven years old, I knew that I'd been called to the ministry. I've just always been really stunned by how big a pulpit I was gonna have! I still am. I truly believe with all my heart that God has put me in this place at this time to do His will. On Aug. 6 of this year, 2011, we are going to have a day of prayer and fasting. And it's going to be the real deal. It's not going to be some program where we line up a dozen political figures to come in and talk. It's going to be people standing on that stage, projecting and proclaiming Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Let me tell you, that's a big stadium and there will be a lot of people. But it's going to send a powerful message across this country!  Our country's broke. Well, actually, Washington's broke; our country's going to be just fine. But we've got to have men and women who are willing to stand up to  proclaim the values that this country was based upon. In 1774, at the Continental Congress when they got together and penned that first document, they talked about "life" and "liberty." Interestingly, the third thing they talked about was "property." A couple of years later, when they actually wrote the Declaration, they changed that "property" to "the pursuit of happiness." I just signed a piece of legislation today, the eminent domain legislation. I tell people, that "personal property" and the ownership of that personal property is crucial to our way of life. Our founding fathers understood that it was a very important part of the pursuit of happiness. Being able to own things that are your own is one of the things that makes America unique. But I happen to think that it's in jeopardy. It's in jeopardy because of taxes; it's in jeopardy because of regulation; it's in jeopardy because of a legal system thats run amok.And I think it's time for us to just hand it over to God and say, "God, Youre going to have to fix this." (I think it was Herman Cain who stood up the other day and said, "How's that 'Hope and Change' thing working out for you?") I think it's time for us to use our wisdom and our influence and really put it in God's hands. That's what I'm going to do, and I hope you'll join me.I hope you'll join us in Houston on the 6th day of August and really start a revival across this country. Here's what I want to leave you with. I know from time to time, people will say something like, "There goes Perry. He wants to secede." But I love this country. We're a special place. We were created by God-fearing individuals who understood those biblical values and how powerful they could be and would be in the future. And I suggest that for our country, our best days are ahead if we'll get on our knees and ask God to take over and give us wisdom. I may wear the Lord out every day in prayer. I pray for this country. I pray for restoration for this country. I pray for our president every day. I pray that God turns buckets of wisdom out on his head, that God will open his eyes. We can change this country, but it requires our giving it to Him and letting Him guide us. Origins:  The above is an accurate transcript of a speech given by Texas governor Rick Perry at Longview, Texas, on 23 May 2011.  The event referred to therein is The Response, a "solemn gathering of prayer and fasting for our country" to be held at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas, on 6 August 2011. The Response Last updated:  11 July 2011 Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25. Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old, Cooper said. That means theyre still using the schools you and I went to. We wondered whether the states public schools are actually that old, so we decided to check out Coopers numbers ourselves. As it turns out, the data is not so easy to come by. We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs. Little gave us a table that said 949 of 2,306 public schools that reported construction dates were at least 50 years old (325 schools did not report their dates). He said the table came from the Department of Public Instruction but was not publicly available online. According to the table, about 41 percent of the schools that reported construction dates are more than 50 years old. But Drew Elliot, communications director for the Department of Public Instruction, said he could not confirm the table came from his department. He said he believes his office could get those numbers or something very close to it but could not validate them without a weeks time. We have no reason to think that his numbers are off, he said. Nothing in there looks anomalous to what we know about the age of school buildings in North Carolina. We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves. That wasnt easy. The list assigns multiple construction dates to each school, and its not immediately clear what each date refers to. But Elliot said the dates correspond to construction of separate structures and that the earliest date listed for each school would offer the best approximation of the schools age. So, we did our best to sort through the raw numbers. It turns out that the number of old schools may actually be larger than Cooper claimed. Out of 2,631 total schools, we counted 2,299 that had construction dates listed beside them. And judging by the earliest dates listed for each, 1,118 of those 2,299 schools were built during or before 1969, making them at least 50 years old. That means that, by our calculations, nearly half the public schools are greater than 50 years old. But because the dates on the list were not labeled, even our calculations may be imperfect. Also, the totals could change with more information about the schools that did not report their ages for the 2016 survey. And theres potentially a big caveat because some schools have been renovated since their original construction, making them newer than their age suggests. Cooper said, Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old. The raw numbers from the department  the best information available  put Coopers statement in the right ballpark and showed it may even be an underestimate. But there are some uncertainties. So we rate this statement Mostly True. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected]. As news broke in June 2018 that children were being separated from their families by immigration agents as they crossed into the United States from Mexico, an intense round of whataboutism ensued as the usual bots, paid trolls, unpaid trolls, and useful idiots took the opportunity to claim that President Barack Obama did the same thing during his time in office (he didn't). One piece of "evidence" supporting this argument was a photograph of a group of protesters holding a sign reading "Obama Don't Separate Me From My Mommy."  whataboutism he didn't This image was frequently shared along with statements claiming that it destroyed "the liberal narrative," and that Obama, too, had kept children in cages after separating them from their mothers: statements   This is indeed a genuine photograph that was taken during the Obama era in 2014. However, there major differences between the immigration policy at the center of the pictured protest and the child detention centers that were at the center of public outrage in June 2018. In a nutshell: Families were separated under President Barack Obama as the result of deportation of undocumented people from the United States. Families were separated under President Donald Trump as parents and children were put into different detention facilities after they crossed the border to ask for asylum in the United States. Obama was referred to by some border activists as the "Deporter-in-Chief" during his time in office, as he deported more people from the United States (thanks in part, but not completely, to a change in definition) than any other president in modern history. Many of these deportations resulted in families being separated, because children born in the United States were allowed to stay in the country but their parents were forced to leave.  deported definition A June 2014 article published by the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Obama, saying that he was not living up to the promises he made on immigration during the 2008 campaign, and that deportation was still separating children from their parents under his watch: criticized During the 2008 campaign, Senator Barack Obama seemed to understand their pain and promised to fix our broken immigration system. He promised to enact comprehensive immigration reform and create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of hardworking people who labor for little money at often thankless jobs to make their children's lives  and for that matter our lives a little bit easier. He pledged to no longer separate children from their parents. Today 4 million children call an undocumented immigrant mom or dad. Children who hug their parents extra tight before they leave for work for fear they'll never see them again. The viral photograph was taken by Associated Press photographer Jose Luis Magana on 2 August 2014 as demonstrators asked Obama to modify his deportation policies. Associated Press Obama attempted to mitigate the issue a few months later when he announced the "Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan. One of the central points of the plan was to focus on felons rather than families; another was to provide undocumented immigrants already living in the United States a chance to avoid deportation by passing a background check and paying taxes.  Immigration Accountability Executive Action plan This photograph shows a group of protesters urging President Barack Obama to modify his policies in order to ease deportations that result in family separations. The sign does not refer to children that were taken away from their parents and placed in detention centers. Timm, Jane.  "Fact check: Did Obama Administration Separate Families?."
  NBC News.  19 June 2018. Bichir, Demian.  "Exiled: The Obama Administration's Horrifying Deportation Record."
  ACLU.  10 June 2014. Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?":     No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. figure Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: summarized Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. In 1972 legislation The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost. affect largest Konish, Lorie.  "Your Social Security Check Will Get a 2.8% Boost in 2019."
  AL.com.  16 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Historical Background and Development of Social Security."
  Accessed 17 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Social Security Benefits to Increase in 2019."
  11 October 2018.