We ... sold the state airplanes as I had promised.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott couldn't help but bring up the sale of the two state airplanes during his first State of the State speech on March 8, 2011. Scott told a joint session of the Legislature that, We ... sold the state airplanes as I had promised. On that, there's no question. On Feb. 11, Scott authorized the sale of two state airplanes to out-of-state buyers.Scott directed the Department of Management Services to accept two bids that were revealed earlier this week, according to apress release. This sale of two state-owned airplanes will net the state of Florida more than $560,000 in savings this fiscal year, and it will eliminate the annual operating and leasing costs of $2.4 million per year.Burdening taxpayers with these ongoing expenses is irresponsible and not a core function for government to meet the state's critical needs, Scott said. The planes are a2000 King Air 350and a2003 Cessna Citation Bravo. TheSt. Petersburg Timesdescribed the buyers on Feb. 12: A Mexican-American oil-field services firm, Transportes Internacionales Tamaulipecos, bid $1.9 million for the Cessna jet, and the nine-passenger King Air prop plane brought a bid of $1.77 million from JNC Aircraft Sales of Washington, D.C. Now, the only question is whether those sales were legal. Powerful Senate budget chief J.D. Alexander has questioned the sale of the planes, saying they first needed the consent of the Legislature. You can read the specifics ofAlexander's claim here. But on the merits of Scott's claim, he's right. The planes are long gone. We rate this statement True.
On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015. Quarterly GDP numbers arent the sexiest item in political news, but when the latest state-level updates were released Thursday  for the third quarter of 2015, which ended Sept. 30  Gov. Pat McCrory trumpeted them on both his official and campaign websites and social media pages. McCrory has dubbed his re-election campaign the Carolina Comeback, trying to focus on good economic news. He said these numbers show North Carolina is squarely on the upswing. A states GDP, or gross domestic product, is the total of all goods and services it produces. And McCrory said that since he took office, no state has increased its gross domestic product faster than North Carolina. He credited the states cuts to the income tax rate and unemployment benefits, and the outsourcing of economic development efforts. He also clarified that he was talking about the numbers since January 2013. We have delivered $4.4 billion in tax relief, fixed our broken unemployment insurance system and reformed our economic development strategy to strengthen North Carolinas economy and put more people back to work, McCrory said in a statement. These efforts have positioned North Carolina as one of the fastest growing populations as well as (the) fastest growing economy in the country. Economies are subject to a number of influences. For this fact check, we wont attempt to say what has or hasnt been responsible for the states economic growth. Instead, we will look just at whether its true that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations as well as fastest growing economy in the country, as McCrory claimed. Population growth Between July 1, 2013  shortly after McCrory took office  and July 1, 2015, North Carolina added about 194,000 people for a total population of 10,043,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Thats close to a 2 percent growth rate and slightly better than the national average over that period. From 2013 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2015, five states added more people than North Carolina. Both years, North Carolina was the ninth largest state. North Carolina isnt adding people at the countrys fastest rate, or by the largest amounts. But it has a better-than-average growth rate, and its on pace tocontinue closing the gapwith larger states. McCrory is correct that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. Economic growth This question is a little trickier. Has North Carolina had the fastest-growing economy in the country under Pat McCrorys administration? There are many ways to measure economic strength, and North Carolina is not the best in every measure, according to the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Economic Analysis. For instance, in 2015, the state was 13th in total income and 39th in per-capita income. From 2013 to 2015 North Carolina also had the 19th-fastest growth in per-capita income and the 11th-fastest growth in total income. North Carolinas unemployment and underemployment rates are also both above the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But McCrory specifically referenced GDP growth. For that reason, and because GDP is generally considered the most comprehensive measure of an economys strength, well look only at GDP growth for the sake of this fact check. And on that, McCrory is right that North Carolina is No. 1. Between the first quarter of 2013 and the third quarter of 2015 (the most recent data we have), no states economic output grew as fast as North Carolinas 13.4 percent rate. Florida and California came close, at 13.3 and 13.2 percent GDP growth, respectively. The average for both the Southeast and the United States as a whole was 9.9 percent. Because economists love to do math, there are other ways of defining the same data over the same period. That 13.4 percent rate specifically refers to current (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis also measures GDPs compound growth rate in current dollars and chained dollars. Chaining is a process that adjusts for inflation, but by using different methods from the more common Consumer Price Index. In that measure, North Carolina tied for first in current dollar amounts and tied for seventh in chained dollar amounts. Its also worth noting that right now were partway through the second quarter of 2016, so the data are lagging behind real time by nearly six months. So while we don't know who currently has the fastest-growing economy, the data does show that North Carolinas growth hasnt been as dominant recently. Looking just from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015  the most recent numbers available  North Carolinas GDP grew by 2.8 percent. Thats lower than 10 other states and tied with another seven. Its good, but not the best. Our ruling McCrory is right that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. As for the economy, North Carolina did have the fastest-growing GDP in the country between the first quarter of 2013, when McCrory took office, and the third quarter of 2015. The pace has slowed recently, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement. We rate this claim True. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign cycle, social media users circulated a meme claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden had announced he intended to tax 401(k) plan retirement accounts:  However, the published Biden campaign plan for addressing savings and retirement issues makes no mention of taxing 401(k) accounts, nor could we locate any speech or other public statement by Biden in which he suggested imposing a tax on such accounts. Biden campaign plan Biden did unveil a tax plan that called for "equalizing the tax benefits of retirement plans." Key to that plan was the fact that currently, contributions workers make to retirement plans such as 401(k)s consist of pretax dollars, which reduces those workers' taxable income and thus their income tax liability: reduces Right now you can deduct your contributions to your 401(k) plan right off the top of your income. So far as the IRS is concerned, the money is invisible for this years calculations. Make $200,000 and contribute the maximum $19,500 to your 401(k), and as far as Uncle Sam (and your state) are concerned, you didnt make $200,000 this year, you only made $181,500. But, Biden contended, this type of tax benefit is skewed in favor of higher-income families: The more tax you pay, the more [your 401(k) contribution] saves you. If you have to pay the top, 37% federal tax rate on every extra dollar you earn, deducting that money from your tax return saves you $7,215 in income taxes. But if youre only paying 10% federal tax on each extra dollar you earn, deducting $19,500 would save you just $1,950. Therefore, Biden has proposed to equalize these benefits across the income spectrum by providing taxpayers with an approximately 26% refundable tax credit in place of the deductions they currently get for contributing to retirement plans: The current tax benefits for retirement savings are based on the concept of deferral, whereby savers get to exclude their retirement contributions from tax, see their savings grow tax-free, and then pay taxes when they withdraw money from their account. This system provides upper-income families with a much stronger tax break for saving and a limited benefit for middle-class and other workers with lower earnings. The Biden Plan will equalize benefits across the income scale, so that low- and middle-income workers will also get a tax break when they put money away for retirement. The Tax Foundation independent tax policy organization explained this plan thusly: Tax Foundation Biden proposes converting the current deductibility of traditional retirement contributions into matching refundable tax credits for 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and other types of traditional retirement vehicles, such as SIMPLE accounts. Bidens proposal would eliminate deductible traditional contributions and instead provide a 26 percent refundable tax credit for each $1 contributed. The tax credit would be deposited into the taxpayers retirement account as a matching contribution. Existing contribution limits would remain, and Roth-style tax treatment would be unaffected. Is it accurate to assert that Joe Biden said "he's going to tax your 401(k)"? Not really, since the Democratic presidential candidate hasn't proposed taxing the amount of money people contribute to or maintain in their retirement accounts, nor to eliminate the tax reductions workers realize by paying some of their earnings into those plans. But Biden's proposal would likely have the effect, in the words of MarketWatch, of "subsidizing retirement savings for those earning less by raising taxes on everyone else." MarketWatch Mermin, Gordon B.  An Analysis of Former Vice President Bidens Tax Proposals."
  Tax Policy Center.  5 March 2020. Mercado, Darla.  "Biden Calls for an Overhaul of 401(k) Tax Breaks. What It Means for You."
  CNBC.  22 September 2020. Watson, Garrett.  "Bidens Proposal Would Shift the Distribution of Retirement Tax Benefits."
  Tax Foundation.  26 August 2020. Arends, Brett.  "Opinion: Will Bidens 401(k) Plan Help You or Hurt You?"
  MarketWatch.  15 September 2020. In a Nov. 8op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Democratic state Sen. Mike Romano offered a litany of troubling statistics about West Virginias economy and urged the creation of a real economic comeback in West Virginia. One of Romanos statistics was that, adjusting for inflation, West Virginias median household income has not grown in a decade. We fact-checkedtwo otherstatementsfrom his op-ed that turned out to be True. Is the latest one on stagnant income correct? We turned to official federal data from the Census Bureau to find out. That data shows that in 2007, the inflation-adjusted median household income in West Virginia was $49,885  the culmination of a decade and a half of consistent gains above the rate of inflation. But one decade later, the 2007 figure remains the states highest median income level since the statistic was first recorded in 1984. Over that decade, the median income fell by 9 percent when factoring in inflation. (Data for 2018 is not available yet.) The nation as a whole has seen some income stagnation since 1999, but nothing as severe as West Virginia experienced. Nationally, median incomes have risen every year since 2014 and hit an all-time high in 2017. Comparing the specific years Romano used  2007 to 2017  the national figure rose by 3 percent. Romano wrote that adjusting for inflation, West Virginias median household income has not grown in a decade. West Virginias inflation-adjusted median income has dropped 9 percent in the last decade, even as the national figure has risen by 3 percent. We rate his statement True. In May 2023, a reader informed us by email of a scam appearing in Facebook and Instagram ads that claimed Delta Air Lines was holding a promotion to give away $500 gift cards for $1 each. On the same day, we reviewed a second "Delta Airlines Online Shopper" scam in an email from an address ending in asahi.com that promised a "$100 reward" or gift card, simply for taking a survey. Needless to say, these were not legitimate giveaways, nor were they offered by Delta Air Lines. Always remember with online offers that if they seem too good to be true, they probably are. Worse, they are likely to be phishing scams that can result in both privacy and monetary losses for victims. First, Delta Air Lines was not giving away $500 gift cards for $1 each. Even something as small as $5 gift cards for $1 each would make little sense, as it would be putting Delta or other airlines in the position of losing money to the throngs who would buy up the cards. The scam ads read as follows: Elevate your travel experience with Delta! We're giving you an extraordinary opportunity to fuel your dreams of exploration. For only $1, you can get a $500 gift card - a limited time offer that's too good to pass up. It's time to see why Delta isn't just an airline, it's the Delta difference. Apply now and book your next Delta journey today! The paid ads on Facebook and Instagram led to a fake survey onduwucuu.info. After filling out the survey, the scam led users towb.giftgiveaways.xyz where they were asked to fill out personal information and a credit card number. As for the email scam that promised $100 Delta Air Lines "rewards" or gift cards for taking a survey, the messages were often coming from "ozdxuofbqh.asahi.com via loi5sir.classyield.site." Clicking the link in the message led to a strangely-labeled "Hitech Research" website onignitesurge.org. The page instructed users to take a survey and then pick a "free" offer on gadgetspromodeals.com or other websites. However, these "free" offers came with monthly subscription fees that were hidden in the terms and conditions. Nowhere on these pages did we find a box for customers to check to indicate that they agreed to the fine print that appeared on another page. The domain name giftgiveaways.xyz was last registered on May 15, just seven days before we looked into the "$500 gift cards for $1" scam. Meanwhile, ignitesurge.org, the website associated with the $100 Delta Air Lines "reward" email scam, was last registered on April 5. Newly-registered domain names are often a big red flag associated with scams. We advise all readers to do their due diligence before giving their credit card number to a website they've never heard of. Scammers often hide subscription fees in terms and conditions and purposely do not mention these fees anywhere on the product checkout pages. Contact your credit card company immediately if you believe you have given your credit card number to scammers. Delta Air Lines hosts a page about the scams they've seen over the years, including gift card promotional websites: page Over the years, Delta has received reports of attempts by parties not affiliated with us to fraudulently gather customer information in a number of ways including: fraudulent emails, social media sites, postcards, Gift Card promotional websites claiming to be from Delta Air Lines and letters or prize notifications promising free travel. These messages were not sent by Delta Air Lines. We do not market to our customers this way, but individuals or groups intending to gather and use your personal data for their gain can be inventive in their approach  often adding messages to generate a sense of urgency so you take action. Scammers know that airfare can be quite pricey. By pushing fake offers for cheaper airline tickets, they attempt to scam the masses with their fraudulent schemes. If readers encounter offers in the future that seem suspicious, we recommend contacting the airline company directly to ask questions. For further reading n the realm of "way too good to be true," we once covered anotherscam that claimed Delta Air Lines was giving away first-class air travel tickets and $10,000 in cash. scam "Protect Your Data." Delta Air Lines, https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/privacy-and-security/protect-your-data. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014 Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who "fortuitously" called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who "fortuitously" bought "put options" on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards. workers stock American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event: Larry Silverstein Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000. While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it's also partly fiction  most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word "fortuitous," that Silverstein's decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.  There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he "chose" to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike. It's important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn't actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out. Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of "terrorism insurance coverage," what we're actually speaking of is coverage that doesn't have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren't uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There's no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn't routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001. covered Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or "fortuitous," therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy  which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage  two months before 9/11, because that's when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn't even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer. report It's a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It's also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, "occurrences"), not one. But this wasn't some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein's court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority. estimated obligations The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single "occurrence" by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought. payout Ackman, Dan.  "Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground."   Forbes.  11 September 2003. Bagli, Charles V. "Final Vote Set on Silverstein's Towers at Ground Zero."   The New York Times (City Room Blog).  25 August 2010. Frangos, Alex.  "Uncertainties Soar at Ground Zero."   The Wall Street Journal.  20 October 2004. Frankel, Alison.  "Double Indemnity."   The American Lawyer.  3 September 2002. Hirschkorn, Phil and Jonathan Wald.  "Verdict in 9/11 Insurance Battle."   CNN.  30 April 2004. Lieberman, Joseph.  "America Needs Terrorism Insurance."   Forbes.  12 July 2005. Sorkin, Andrew and Simon Romero.  "A Day of Terror: The Insurers; Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damages."   The New York Times.  12 September 2001. Insurance Information Institute.  "Terrorism Risk and Insurance."   August 2016. Insurance Journal.  "Court Upholds Juries' Rulings in World Trade Center Claims."   19 October 2006. Reuters. "WTC Attack to Cost Insurers Billions."   11 September 2001. For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987. Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family. The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.) occupation Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee: testify Abu Nidal Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ... "Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna"  that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded  "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor. When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout. Abu Nidal himself, quoted in Der Spiegel, "Between America and us, there exists a war to the death. In the coming months and years, Americans will be thinking about us." "For sheer viciousness, Abu Nidal has few rivals in the underworld of terrorism." Newseek. Our own State Department, and we have copies of these that we can make available for insertion in the record, but the State Department summary on Abu Nidal, not exactly an overstatement, notes that his followers, who number an estimated 500, have killed as many as 181 persons, and wounded more than 200, in two years. Abu Nidal does not deny these things. We also have an exhibit that we can provide for you that shows what Abu Nidal did in the Christmas Massacres. One of the people killed in the Christmas Massacre  and I do not wish to overdramatize this  but the Abu Nidal terrorists in Rome who blasted the 11-year-old American Natasha Simpson to her knees, deliberately zeroed in and fired an extra burst at her head just in case. I want you to know that I'd be more than willing ... to meet Abu Nidal on equal terms anywhere in the world. There's an even deal for him. OK? But I am not willing to have my wife and my four children meet Abu Nidal or his organization on his terms. To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi: Mohmmar Qadaffi In February 1987, Muammar Ghadaffi ordered his thugs to carry out a threat made against me in 1986. Thankfully, the FBI intercepted the well-armed perpetrators on the way to our home, and my family and I were sequestered for a time on a military base. The orders from Tripoli were delivered to a terrorist cell in Virginia  at the offices of The People's Committee for Libyan Students. So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation: FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS  NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS,OLIVER L. NORTH Variations:  One variant of this item concluded with the statement "The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than ... Al Gore." Senator Al Gore of Tennessee was not a member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and therefore did not take part in the questioning of any witnesses before the Committee. Additional information:    Fisk, Robert.  "Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace."
  The [London] Independent.  6 December 1993  (p. 10). Fritz, Sara and Karen Tumulty.  "North's Attempt at Cover-Up Is Told."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 June 1987  (p. A1). Ibrahim, Youssef.  "Saudi Stripped of Citizenship for Funding Fundamentalists."
  The [London] Guardian.  11 April 1994  (p. 8). North, Oliver.  "Tackling Terrorism."
  TownHall.com.  9 June 2000. Tackling Terrorism North, Oliver L.
 Under Fire: An American Story.  New York: HarperCollins, 1992  (pp. 341-344). Pincus, Walter.  "North Says He and His Superiors Lied About Contra Aid."
  The Washington Post.  9 July 1987  (p. A1). In January 2020 we received multiple inquiries from readers about an alert that was shared widely on Facebook and Twitter, purporting to be an "emergency notification" from an unspecified "Ministry of Health" about an ongoing outbreak of a new coronavirus.  Broadly speaking, the warning appeared in two forms. The most commonly shared was a text post that typically read as follows: *Urgent: Health Bulletin to the Public * *Ministry of healths emergency notification to the public that the Coronavirus outbreak this time is very very serious & fatal. There's no cure once you are infected.**Its spreading from China to various countries* *Prevention method is to keep your throat moist, do not let your throat dry up. Thus do not hold your thirst because once your membrane in your throat is dried, the virus will invade into your body within 10 mins.**Drink 50-80cc warm water, 30-50cc for kids, according to age.* *Everytime u feel your throat is dry, do not wait, keep water in hand.* *Do not drink plenty at one time as it doesnt help, instead continue to keep throat moist.**Till end of March 2020, do not go to crowded places, wear mask as needed especially in train or public transportation* *Avoid fried or spicy food and load up vitamin C.**The symptoms/ description are**1.repeated high fever**2.prolonged coughing after fever**3.Children are prone**4.Adults usually feel uneasy,*headache and mainly respiratory related**5: highly contagious*   The message was typically followed up with an exhortation to share its warnings, such as, "Please forward to help others." One version of the viral alert even concluded by pleading with readers, "Please share if you care for human life."  warnings version The second principal form in which the message appeared was as a photograph of a printed email, dated Jan. 28, 2020, and purporting to have been sent by "NWLLAB." It contained many of the same key components  it purported to come from an unspecified "MOH" (Ministry of Health), and its main recommendation to the public was again to "keep your throat moist" by drinking water. It read as follows: appeared photograph Pls tell ur families, relatives and friends MOH Health Bulletin to the Public: The Upper Respiratory Infection affecting China at present is quite serious. The virus causing it is very potent and is resistant to existing antibiotics.  (virus is not bacterial infection hence cannot be treated by antibiotics). The prevention method now is to keep your throat moist, do not let your throat dry up. Thus do not hold your thirst because once your membrane in your throat is dried, the virus will invade into your body within 10 mins. Drink 50-80cc warm water, 30-50cc for kids, according to age. Everytime [sic] you feel your throat is dry, do not wait, keep water in hand. Do not drink plenty at one time as it does not help; instead, continue to keep throat moist. Till end of March, do not go to crowded places, wear mask as needed especially in train or public transportation.  Avoid fried or spicy food and load up vitamin C.  The symptoms/description are: 1. Repeated high fever.2. Prolonged coughing after fever. 3. Children are more prone. 4. Adults usually feel uneasy, headache and mainly respiratory related illness.  This illness is highly contagious. Let's continue to pray and wait for further notice about the infection.  Please share.    Neither the printed email nor the viral Facebook message were official statements produced by any public health authority. The alert was apt to spread widely online precisely because it did not include any details about its supposed source, aside from mentioning a "Ministry of Health" in an unspecified country or region.  The message also contained erroneous advice, claiming that readers could avoid contracting the virus by "keeping your throat moist," avoiding fried or spicy food, and taking vitamin-C supplements. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the so-called "novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" outbreak is thought to have first been transmitted from animals to humans in Wuhan, Hubei Province, in China. Since then, it has spread from person to person. Previous coronaviruses like Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have been transmitted between humans primarily through "respiratory droplets"  that is, coughs and sneezes.  outbreak The CDC's general respiratory infection prevention advice applies to the 2019-nCoV outbreak, as follows: as follows No evidence exists to indicate that any public health authority is officially advising the public that a dry throat makes individuals more vulnerable to contracting the virus, and that therefore drinking water is an effective prevention method, nor that vitamin C deficiency contributes to one's vulnerability to contracting the illness, nor that fried and spicy food are a medium for transmission of 2019-nCoV.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Summary."
  30 January 2020. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2019 Novel Coronavirus -- Prevention and Treatment."
  30 January 2020. Officials in Jefferson County, Georgia, faced allegations of racially-motivated voter suppression in October 2018 in response to an incident in which a voter registration group was ordered to return a group of African-American seniors to a county-run senior center, after those seniors boarded a bus to cast ballots during early voting for the November elections. The liberal web site ThinkProgress reported of the incident that: reported Seniors in rural Georgia were dancing in the street, preparing to board Black Voters Matters bus to cast their ballots Monday, the first day of the states early voting period. But the county administrator ordered the senior center to take the 40 or so elderly African Americans off the bus  an act organizers described as live voter suppression. In a Facebook video about the incident, which took place on 15 October, the group's co-founders LaTosha Brown and Cliff Albright characterized the county's decision as racially-motivated voter suppression, with Albright saying: Somebody called the County Commission to complain because they saw all these black folks get on this big black bus -- it's the blackest bus in America -- somebody drove past, saw that, got nervous, got mad, called the County Commission's office, which then called the center. And the bottom line was, all the folks who had just got on the bus -- and the bus was full, this is a 50-passenger bus full of folks -- had to come off the bus. There's not a candidate on this bus, there's not a party symbol on this bus, but I'm going to tell you what is on this bus -- a whole bunch of black fists in the air with the word "power" underneath it. That's what scared them and made them say "Those folks have to come off that bus." However, Jefferson County administrator Adam Brett insisted that the event constituted "political activity," something that the county purportedly does not allow on county property or at county-sponsored events. Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans was on the bus in question and helped organize the visit to the senior center in the first place, as revealed in email correspondence published by Augusta television station WJBF. WJBF Furthermore, Brett said he had not "vetted" Black Voters Matter, and that allowing the senior citizens to leave with an unfamiliar outside group could have been a "liability" for the county, which operates the senior center in Louisville and also organizes its own chartered buses for seniors to get to polling stations. said In a statement sent to us, Brett wrote: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has a practice of not allowing political activities during normal business hours on County property or at County sponsored activities. On October 15th, the Senior Center staff declined to allow a third party and unknown bus operator to pick County residents on County property for political purposes. The Senior Center staff routinely arrange Jefferson County Public Transit to transport senior citizens to vote. In an email, Albright rejected Brett's "liability" argument, calling it "paternalistic" and pointing out that the Louisville senior center is an activities center, not a residential center: Seniors can come [and] go when they please and with whomever they choose to leave with. If they want to leave with a family member, an Uber driver, or an organization they trust, that is their own choice. These are grown adults who decided who they wanted to leave with, and despite Mr. Bretts paternalistic need to feel comfortable with that decision, he has no control over those choices, nor liability [for them]. We asked Brett what the legal basis was for his order (carried out by staff at the senior center) not to "allow" the seniors to travel to the polling station with Black Voters Matter and requested that he clarify Jefferson County's legal authority and liabilities relating to people who use the senior center. We did not receive a response to those questions. Albright told us that staff at the senior center had given advance permission for Black Voters Matter to visit the center and hold an event there, but not for them to escort seniors to polling stations. However, he maintained this was because the group had not initially planned to take the bus trip, which he said the seniors themselves had asked for, spontaneously: The seniors requested to ride the bus to go vote after they saw it and were excited. The center director approved/supported the request, which is why the seniors even got on the bus. It was not until the county administrator called the center director that it became a problem. Albright also questioned the sincerity of Brett's invocation of county policy on "political activities," pointing out that Jody Hice, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is scheduled to host an event at the senior center on 27 October. (Albright emphasized that he thought the event in question was very worthy and should be allowed to take place at the center, but he saw it as an example of a double standard.) scheduled In fact, on the same day that the seniors were prevented from travelling with Black Voters Matter to a polling station, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners actually promoted Congressman Hice's event at the senior center on their Facebook page, in a post that was taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release: press release   We asked Brett to explain why the county had forbidden an event in which a bus carrying a local Democratic party official -- but no elected politician or candidate -- was to escort seniors to a polling station away from the center itself, but allowed a sitting Republican Congressman, who is actively campaigning for re-election, to host an event in the center itself. We also asked why the Board of Commissioners had promoted that event. We did not receive a response to those questions. re-election In a separate Facebook post, the Board of Commissioners explained that the bus trip had been forbidden because it "was led by the President of the Jefferson County Democratic Party [Diane Evans] and as such was considered a political event." However, the Black Voters Matter's visit had been organized with the assistance of Evans, and yet it was still allowed to take place. post We asked Brett why the Black Voters Matter visit was allowed to go ahead despite the involvement of Evans, but the bus trip was not, and asked whether he had considered requesting that Evans disembark the bus (given that her involvement was purportedly the source of the county's objections) rather than ordering the seniors to return to the center. Again, we did not receive a response to these questions. Conclusion It is true that on 15 October 2018, staff at the Jefferson County senior center in Louisville enacted the instructions of County Administrator Adam Brett by insisting that a group of seniors return to the center after they voluntarily boarded a bus operated on behalf of Black Voters Matter, a voter registration group. The leaders of that group characterized the incident as racially-motivated voter suppression, but Brett insisted otherwise, stating that the reasons for his order were twofold: the involvement of Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans meant that the bus trip constituted "political activity," something the county could not allow, and county officials had not vetted Black Voters Matter or the bus operator, creating a potential liability for the county which Brett was unwilling to assume. However, it must be acknowledged that significant problems exist with the coherence of the twofold rationale outlined by Brett. First, it is not clear that Jefferson County actually has any legal liability for anything that happens to those who use the center once they have left the center. Likewise, it's not clear that Brett had any legal authority to "not allow" seniors to travel to the polling station or Black Voters Matter to escort them there. Second, the consistency with which Jefferson County enforces their prohibition on "political activities" at the senior center is questionable. On the one hand, Brett forbade the bus trip to the polling station on this basis due to the involvement of a local Democratic official, even though the bus trip would have taken the seniors away from the senior center, and even though the county allowed a visit to the senior center which had been organized with the help of that same Democratic official. But Jefferson County's Board of Commissioners also sanctioned a forthcoming event to be hosted by Jody Hice, a sitting Republican Congressman and active election candidate, which is scheduled to take place in the center itself, and the Board of Commissioners has promoted that event on Facebook in a post taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release. Lerner, Kira.& nbsp; "'This Is Live Voter Suppression': Black Voters Matter Blocked grom Taking Seniors to Vote."
  ThinkProgress.  15 October 2018. DuBose, Renetta.  "Jefferson County: 'It Was Miscommunication, Not Voter Suppression.'"
  WJBF-TV.  17 October 2018. Hice, Jody.  "Press Release -- Hice to Host Helping Our Heroes Veterans' Event."
  U.S. Representative Jody Hice.  10 October 2018. The New York Times.  "Georgia Primary Election Results: 10th House District."
  29 May 2018. Correction [22 October 2018]: In some instances, this article previously referred to the Chairperson of the Jefferson County Democrats as Diane Davis. She is Diane Evans.