Did Mike Pompeo Say 'We Will Continue to Fight These Battles Until the Rapture'?
Michael Richard Pompeo represented Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives between 2011 and 2017 and then served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until April 26, 2018, when he was tapped by U.S. President Donald Trump to succeed the departed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. As The New York Times observed of Pompeo in March 2019, "no secretary of state in recent decades has been as open and fervent as Mr. Pompeo about discussing Christianity and foreign policy in the same breath. That has increasingly raised questions about the extent to which evangelical beliefs are influencing American diplomacy." observed That questioning of Pompeo's mixture of religiosity and policy was reflected in a meme circulated in January 2020, amidst escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad: airstrike  The quote reproduced in this meme  about continuing to fight battles and struggle until the moment of the Rapture  was taken from a talk Pompeo delivered at a "God and Country Rally" held at Summit Church in Wichita, Kansas, on June 28, 2015. The event was just a few days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision holding that same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry. Rapture Obergefell v. Hodges The words reproduced above were excerpted from a portion of Pompeo's speech, as captured here:  However, that short clip doesn't provide the full context of Pompeo's remark, which was not specifically about military or political battles. We reproduce the surrounding context below, as taken from a video of the complete speech (beginning around the 23:19 mark): complete speech On Friday, just hours after the Supreme Court's [Obergefell v. Hodges] decision, my wife entered a retail establishment here in Kansas. She went to the counter to pay for the products that she had purchased, and the man behind the counter saw the credit card that she was using and said "Are you related?" And before he could finish she said, "Yes, yes, yes, I'm his wife," and he teared up and he said, "Thank your husband for what he's doing; thank you for allowing him to go do that. Have strength, Susan, and remember always that no matter what happens in Washington, D.C. or in Topeka, it is the Lord that is in control." This was a stranger to Susan. This was a man who[m] she had not met before, but he took time from his role to pray for her and to thank her and to make clear that his Christian understanding of our nation was not just in her heart but his, and that he would work every day to make sure that the Lord's work govern our actions each and every day. It was a remarkable moment. We are blessed to live in Kansas where there are so many people that understand that. We will continue to fight these battles. It is a never-ending struggle. Until that moment Pastor Fox spoke about, until the Rapture be part of it, be in the fight. Ask for forgiveness seek His wisdom, and heed your pastor's call to actions, and great things will be bestowed upon our nation and our world. Wong, Edward.  "The Rapture and the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy."
  The New York Times.  30 March 2009.
In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet:  This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington: Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldnt stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water.Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase.While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TVs 10 News Conference on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they werent out of line.For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge  I dont think thats an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island, Licht said.Could the fees atstate beachesstill be lower than town beaches  even if doubled?When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governors spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us wed hear back by the next day.While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season.Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. And there are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents and seniors. (The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey. )We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents -- who dont live in beach communities -- would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, theyd all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, theyd pay that communitys non-resident fee.The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Comptons South Shore Beach. Middletowns Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newports Eastons Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly.So how does the states proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach, on the Sakonnet River.So far, so good for Licht.But what about daily fees? (Remember, were comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents. )Lets begin with weekdays.The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10.Three towns -- Warren, Bristol and Tiverton -- charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6 and Portsmouth charges $7.Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns -- Barrington and North Kingstown -- dont allow non-residents to park at their beaches.So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners.On weekends and holidays, the states new fee would be $14 -- less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns.So when Licht says the new state fees are less than some of the town beaches, we cant  disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances.We wont kick any sand at Licht on this one. We rate his claimTrue. In June 2019, a variety of news outlets published reports detailing the horrid conditions at immigrant detention centers along the United States' southern border. The Associated Press, for instance, quoted a lawyer named Warren Binford, who visited a facility in Texas and spoke to some of the immigrant children detained within, saying that the kids were living in "inhumane conditions." ABC News obtained a medical declaration that likened these detention centers to torture facilities. Associated Press ABC News As outrage from these reports grew online, actress Nancy Lee Grahn posted a set of photographs that supposedly documented these conditions and accused the Trump administration of forcing children to "sleep on cement floor with an aluminum blanket & lights on all night":  Nancy Lee Grahn   While the text of Grahn's tweet accurately reflects recent news reports, the photographs she used to illustrate her point were not taken during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.  These photographs are actually still images from a surveillance camera at a Border Patrol holding facility in Tucson, Ariz., in August 2015. The images were released as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the conditions at the agency's temporary holding facilities. lawsuit Here's an excerpt from an NPR report: NPR The holding cells were designed to be used for temporary holding  a period of hours. The American Immigration Council analyzed Border Patrol data and concluded that from September 2014 to August 2015, two-thirds of immigrants detained in Border Patrol facilities in the Southwest were held for more than 24 hours, and tens of thousands of people were held for more than three days. Photos of the cells show people crowded together in concrete cells. Several images show prisoners sitting or sleeping on bare floors with no mats available to them  even when there are unused mats in empty cells. While these photographs were taken during the Obama administration, the conditions described in Grahn's tweet still apply to the detention facilities operating under Trump. Physician Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a detention center after a flu outbreak sent five infants to the neonatal intensive care unit. In a medical declaration obtained by ABC News, Sevier compared the conditions to a "torture facility" and wrote that minors were dealing with "extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food." ABC News Binford, a law professor, told NPR: "They are worse than actual prison conditions. It is inhumane. It's nothing that I ever imagined seeing in the United States of America." NPR The second part of Grahn's tweet mentions "Sarah Fabian" and claims that companies are making $750 day to detain immigrant children. Fabian is a Department of Justice lawyer who attempted to defend the conditions at detention centers during a June 2019 Court of Appeals hearing. According to the Washington Post:  defend The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldnt be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a nights sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities. The position bewildered a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, who questioned whether government lawyers sincerely believed they could describe the temporary detention facilities as safe and sanitary if children werent provided adequate toiletries and sleeping conditions. One circuit judge said it struck him as inconceivable." [...] The government was in court to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that child migrants and their parents were detained in dirty, crowded, bitingly cold conditions inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities along the southern border. Migrants are first taken to those facilities after they are apprehended at the border. [...] U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee had found that migrants in Rio Grande Valley facilities were hungry, with some eating only sandwiches of two pieces of dry bread and one slice of ham. They were thirsty, with up to 20 migrants sharing the same cup to drink from the water cooler. They were embarrassed to use a toilet in front of 50 other people and they couldnt take a shower or brush their teeth or even wash their hands with soap and dry them with a towel, the judge found. At night, they couldnt sleep. The lights were left on, as they shivered beneath an aluminum blanket on the concrete floor, the judge found. Gee ruled in June 2017 that these Obama-era conditions violated a 1997 settlement agreement requiring that immigrant children in the governments custody be housed in safe and sanitary conditions, and that the government maintain concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. But the Trump administration protested. The 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, didnt say anything about providing a toothbrush, towels, dry clothing, soap, or even sleep, the administration has argued. Grahn's claim that companies make $750 "a kid a day to torture them" relates to the fact that some immigration detention centers are owned and operated by private for-profit companies.  Reuters reported in February 2019 that while it costs about $250 per day to hold a child at a permanent detention center, the cost can triple at temporary, privately owned, for-profit facilities such as the "Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children":  Reuters As the government seeks to rapidly expand the sites capacity, it has waived a federal requirement at Homestead meant to ensure children receive sufficient health care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for the children, previously required Homestead to maintain a clinician-to-child ratio of 1 to 12 to provide mental health services, according to a November 2018 report. But that requirement has been relaxed to 1 to 20, a Homestead program director said on Wednesday. The facility sits on federal property, and unlike established childrens shelters, such as smaller group or foster homes that hold migrant children across the country, is not governed by state child welfare regulations designed to protect youngsters from harm. [...] About 35 miles south of Miami, the facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the firms parent company, Caliburn International Corp., noted President Donald Trumps immigration policies were driving significant growth. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But at an influx facility like Homestead, the cost is triple that - around $750 per day. It is covered by American taxpayers. To sum up: Viral photographs supposedly documenting the conditions at immigration detention facilities under the Trump administration were actually taken in 2015 during Obama's tenure. The poor conditions at these Obama-era centers have continued or worsened under Trump.  Flynn, Meagan.  "Detained Migrant Children Got No Toothbrush, No Soap, No Sleep. Its No Problem, Government Argues."
  Washington Post.  21 June 2019. Torbati, Yeganeh; Cooke, Kristina.  "First Stop for Migrant Kids: For-Profit Detention Center."
  Reuters.  14 February 2019. Domonoske, Camila.  "Surveillance Stills From Border Patrol Facilities Show Crowded, Trash-Filled Cells."
  NPR.  19 August 2016. Gonzales, Richard.  "Obama Immigrant Detention Policies Under Fire."
  NPR.  12 June 2015. Marhsall, Serena; Zak, Lana; Metz, Jennifer.  "Doctor Compares Conditions for Unaccompanied Children at Immigrant Holding Centers to 'Torture Facilities.'"
  ABC News.  23 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been the subject of a number of false rumors and misleading memes ever since she won a seat as the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. One of many disparaging attacks on the freshman lawmaker came in the form of a photograph that supposedly showed her working at a "Hot Dog on a Stick" stand (a staple of shopping mall food services) and a piece of text claiming that she had been fired from that job for incompetence:   The text of the meme stated that "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was fired from a Hot Dog on a Stick job in 2008 for incompetence. And the Democrats elected her to Congress."    This meme did not relay a credible story about Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, it didn't even feature a photograph of her. This picture used in the meme was taken by Flickr user Michael Zampeli and showed a young woman named Stephanie preparing a batch of lemonade at a Hot Dog on a Stick outlet. While the image used in the meme has been degraded to the point where the name tag on the food worker's hat is illegible, the original photograph on Flickr clearly showed that the tag bore the name "Stephanie": Flickr   It should also be noted that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected to Congress at the age of 29. If this meme were true (which it is not), the alleged firing would have occurred when she was just 18 years-old. This baseless meme is just the latest attack on the congresswoman. We've previously debunked rumors holding that Ocasio-Cortez had a credit score of 430 and a history of evictions, and that her Green New Deal legislation included a provision requiring that men recycle their  urine. attack credit score urine Hess, Abigail.  "29-Year-Old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Poised to Become the Youngest Woman in Congress."
  NBC News.  6 November 2018.  Zampelli, Michael.  "Hot Dog on a Stick."
  Flickr.  16 February 2008. Claim:  Aspiring work-at-homers promised big bucks for acting as intermediaries for international transactions wherein they cash checks for other parties have been defrauded by con artists.  REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good day, my name is Evaldas Vytautas. I'm Sales Manager of Lionder Web Design Agency. We are situated in Vilnius, Lithuania. Lionder Web Design Agency is pleased to offer you the position of Exchange Manager for our organization. We are excited about the potential that you bring to our company. We work with corporate clients and some of them prefer to do wire transfers, however we cannot receive international wire transfers because of heavy taxes. Tax for international wire transfer is 25% In Lithuania. There is no sense for us to work in such a way, however we don't want to lose our clients. You need to have Paypal/bank account. System is completely automated. You will work only 1-2 hours a day, receive, process payments from our clients through your Paypal/bank account. Report about all new payments, act only within the limits of law  earn minimum $1500-$2000 per month. Your salary will be 5-15% from every processed amount (you begin from 5%). To join the minimum requirements include : -MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS (Skills, Knowledge, Ability, etc.)-The minimum qualifications are diploma or equivalent.-Must be able to multi-task and have good communication skills.-Knowledge of MS Word and other basic computer programs.-This being a new field there is NO experience needed. HOW TO APPLY: If you would like to pursue this opportunity simply send Your Resume (CV) to resume@lionder.net OR Download Job Application Form  (www.lionder.net/Job_Application_Form.doc), fill it in and send us to resume@lionder.net (No phone calls please. Callers will not be considered for the position). We will respond promptly. Please don't feel shy to contact our Online Support and ask any questions you will have: Contact Name: Julie JakulyteICQ- 257235542,AOL IM Screen Name- Jakulyte,Yahoo! ID: JJakulyte,MSN- Jakulyte@hotmail.com. No agencies, please. Lionder Web Design Agency is an equal opportunity/affirmative actionemployer. For more information about who we are and what we do, please visit our webiste  www.lionder.net It is necessary that we know your decision by November 20, 2004, so that we can plan accordingly. Regards, Evaldas VytautasLionder Web Design Agency Origins:  In   2004 we began noticing a new scam targeting those searching for part-time paid duties that could be performed from home. This new con uses the promise of high-paying work to lure eager job seekers into being defrauded themselves or used to steal from others. Those so led down the garden path are pulled in by advertisements for jobs involving the forwarding of monies or goods collected in the U.S. to business entities in other countries. Supposedly, the successful applicants will make thousands of dollars through working from home for a few hours a week, with no special skills or training required. Sometimes international wire transfers are specifically mentioned in these solicitations, and the terms "import/export specialist," "marketing manager," and "financial manager" often turn up in their wording. The reputations of the venues where the ads are found proves no protection to those looking for such opportunities, in that this work-at-home scam has been touted thousands of times on popular job web sites including Monster, Careerbuilder, Careers.com, and Yahoo! Hotjobs. This con operates in one of two of ways, both of which leaves hopeful job seekers in a mess of trouble:  In its more usual incarnation, successful job applicants are tasked with depositing checks for varying amounts (anywhere from a few thousand dollars all the way into the six-figure range) into their personal bank accounts and relaying to their new employers 95% of the amount banked, keeping 5% as their commission. The explanation given by the employers for that which necessitates their having someone cash checks on their behalf varies from come-on to come-on, but the need to believe in 'something for nothing' (in this case a high steady income in return for a few hours' work per week) blinds the about-to-be-defrauded to the glaring implausibilities inherent to these tall tales of strange government-imposed restrictions, exorbitant tax rates in the homeland, the need to fly under a competitor's radar, and the like. The checks the unsuspecting dupes are given to deposit are worthless, but this detail is not discovered by them or their banks until weeks after the fact, which is long after 95% of the face value of said financial instruments has been wired to the thieves. As is the case in the 'cashier check' scam (sellers are duped into accepting cashier checks in excess of the amounts they seek for their goods on the understanding they are to forward the additional monies to third parties), the scam works because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) requires banks to make money from cashier's, certified, or teller's checks available in one to five days. Consequently, funds from checks that might not be good are often released into payees' accounts long before the checks themselves have been honored by their issuing banks. High quality forgeries can be bounced back and forth between banks for weeks before anyone catches on to their being worthless. cashier check In this form of the scheme, those who'd thought they were about to pack up and move to Easy Street thanks to their new jobs as international relayers instead find themselves on the hook for the amounts they wired to others. That the original checks were worthless does not absolve those who deposited them from financial responsibility for the funds they subsequently instructed their banks to pay out  the two transactions (the deposit and the disbursement) are regarded as separate. Therefore, if a hypothetical erstwhile wire transfer facilitator handled a bogus check for $10,000, instead of netting $500 (his 5% fee), he would be out $9,500 (the amount he had his bank wire to those who'd conned him).  The mayhem doesn't necessarily end there. There is a further danger that, now armed with the dupe's banking information from the wire transfer, these same thieves can use those numbers to create a demand draft to  withdraw funds without confirmation from the hapless job seeker's bank account until there's nothing left in it but dust. demand draft  In another version of the con, those who land these coveted 'jobs' are tasked with collecting payments from their new employers' clients in the U.S. and wiring these funds back to the home office, retaining a specified portion of the recouped accounts as their fees. Only after the fact does it come to light that the deposited checks were for non-existent merchandise vended through online auction sites, usually about the time that the police come a'knocking on the door. This form of the wire transfer scam mirrors a type of the CNP fraud in which job-seeking dupes are hired to repackage and ship to Nigeria goods purchased on stolen credit cards. As with the wire transfer come-on, the promise of  easy, high-paying part-time work blinds those who unwittingly become part of an international theft ring thanks to their desire to believe in the job fairy. In both cases, they're the ones left holding the bag when the police turn up to ask questions about the monies or goods others have been duped out of. CNP daydream about earning livable incomes from the comfort of their dens rather than having to make the trek to their offices each day, they do not as a general rule of thumb search for such job openings with the same fervor as do the elderly, the physically afflicted, or the parents committed to remaining at home with their preschool children. Members of those groups hunt for work-at-home opportunities because laboring in more traditional job settings is impossible for them. Because genuine offers of work of this nature are few and far between, with the need to secure a steady income becoming more of a pressing issue with each passing non-employed day, those folks are at far greater risk of being victimized by such schemes  their desperation leads them to be gulled by pie-in-the-sky promises and mollified by the wild backstories that go with them whereas the financially better off are more likely to remain convinced something is very wrong with the offer of mucho bucks in exchange for only a few hours' labor performed from home each week by folks possessed of no special training or skills. Barbara "reshipboard romance" Mikkelson How To Avoid Falling Victim To Reshipper Scams: Avoid job listings that use these descriptions: "package forwarding," "reshipping," "money transfers," "wiring funds" and "foreign agent agreements." These and similar phrases should raise a red flag.   Do not be fooled by official-sounding corporate names. Some scam artists operate under names that sound like those of long-standing, reputable firms.   Never forward or transfer money from any of your personal accounts on behalf of your employer. Also, be suspicious if you are asked to "wire" money to an employer. If a legitimate job requires you to make money transfers, the money should be withdrawn from the employers business account, not yours.   Do not give out your personal financial information. A potential legitimate employer will not request your bank account, credit card or Paypal account number. Provide your banking information only if you are hired by a legitimate company and you choose to have your paycheck direct deposited.   Do not fax copies of your ID or Social Security number to someone you have never met. Credit checks and fake IDs can be obtained with this information. Give these documents to your employer only when you are physically at the place of employment.   If you have questions about the legitimacy of a job listing, contact your Better Business Bureau, your state or local consumer agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."  Additional Information:      Work-at-Home Schemes   (Federal Trade Commission)       Work-at-Home Schemes   (Better Business Bureau)   Last updated:  11 July 2011 <!-- In his new film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore makes a case that the richest Americans used to shoulder a much bigger portion of the tax burden back in the years of his childhood. In the 1950s, A lot of people got rich  and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent, Moore says in the film. Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the topmarginaltax rates were over 90 percent. So does that mean that someone in 1955 making a half million dollars had to fork over $450,000 of it to Uncle Sam? No. We are talking here about marginal tax rates. Moore doesn't go out of his way to explain this, so we will. The marginal tax rate is the top rate of income tax charged to individuals on their last dollar of earnings. So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate. On average, a person making, say, $500,000 would pay substantially less than 90 percent of their income in federal taxes. The top marginal tax rates peaked in 1952 and 1953 at 92 percent for income over $300,000. Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center did some math for us to give this some perspective. In 1952 and 1953, Williams said, when the top income tax rate was 92 percent for income over $300,000, a person would have to make waaaay more than $300,000 to actually end up paying an average of 90 percent of their income. According to Williams, someone would have to make $2,328,400, and therefore pay $2,095,560, to get to that 90 percent threshold. But people with income of less than $2.3 million  remember we're talking about 1952 and 1953  would have paid, on average, something less than 90 percent, and perhaps much less. Still, Moore's point is valid. The top marginal tax rates paid by the richest Americans were far higher in the 1950s than they are now. In 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. And although Moore didn't use the term marginal tax rate, he did say top tax rate. People without CPAs might mistake that for a person's average tax rate (it's not), but it's valid wording. And so we rule this one Mostly True. On 4 October 2016, the Facebook page Buzz Channel published a video purportedly showing a 50-foot megaladon (a gigantic species of shark that has been extinct for millions of years) at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest part of Pacific Ocean:  Absolutely Terrifying #Breaking #50ftShark A 50 foot shark has been found 1 mile down the marina trench. At first, many thought it was a Pacific Sleeper Shark. The issue with that theory is the Pacific Sleeper Shark grow only to 20 feet, the shark featured is 50+ feet long. That measurement is estimated using the length of the cage, which is 10 feet across. Could this be the last remaining Megalodon? Watch and share! Buzz Channel's post was rife with misinformation. This video wasn't "breaking," it didn't show a 50-foot shark, it wasn't filmed in the Mariana Trench, and it absolutely didn't capture an extinct megalodon. The earliest version of this video we could uncover was posted to YouTube in 2008: YouTube  That version of the video stated that the footage captured a 7-meter (22-foot) Pacific sleeper shark off the coast of Japan in the Suruga Bay. While certain details of the video are still unclear (such as the date it was made), the clip's description matches that of a shark filmed off the coast of Japan in 1989: matches In September 1989, a large female Pacific Sleeper  estimated to be 23 feet (7 metres) long  was filmed from the viewing ports of a submersible at a depth of 4,000 feet (1,220 metres) off Saruga Bay, Japan. Here's a comparison of the shark in the video and another sleeper shark:  While the shark in the video is indeed large, it would be considered rather small if it were actually a megalodon. Fossil records of that extinct shark species suggest that it reached a size of nearly 60 feet in length. Claim:  Article describes incidents in the administration of Maine governor Paul LePage.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Meet Maine's New Governor  In case you haven't heard aboutthis guy before, his name will stick in your mind! The new Maine Governor, Paul LePage is making New Jersey's Chris Christielook like an enabler. He isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Judging bythe comments, every time he opens his mouth, his popularity goes up.He brought down the house at his inauguration when he shook his fisttoward the media box and said, "You're on notice! I've inherited afinancially troubled State to run. Observe...cover what we do...but don'twhine if I don't waste time responding to your every whim just for youramusement." During his campaign for Governor, he was talking to commercial fishermenwho are struggling because of federal fisheries rules. They complainedthat 0bama brought his family to Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park for along Labor Day holiday and found time to meet with union leaders, butwouldn't talk to the fishermen. LePage replied, "I'd tell him to go tohell and get out of my State." The Lame Stream Media crucified LePage, buthe jumped 6 points in the pre-election poll. The Martin Luther King incident was a political sandbag, which brought himNational exposure. The 'lame stream' media crucified him, but word on thestreet is very positive. The NAACP specifically asked LePage to spend MLKDay visiting black inmates at the Maine State Prison. He told them that hewould meet with ALL inmates, regardless of race, if he were to visit theprison. The NAACP balked and then put out a news release claiming falselythat he refused to participate in any MLK events. He read it in the paperfor the 1st time the next morning while being driven to an event and wentballistic because none of the reporters had called him for comment beforerunning the NAACP release. He arrived at that event & said in front of a TV camera, "If they want toplay the race card on me they can kiss my ass", and he reminded them thathe has an adopted black son from Jamaica and that he attended the localMLK Breakfast every year that he was mayor of Waterville. (He started hismorning there on MLK Day.) He then stated that there's a right way and a wrong way to meet with theGovernor, and he put all special interests on notice that press releases,media leaks, and all demonstrations would prove to be the wrong way. Hesaid any other group, which acted like the NAACP could expect to be at thebottom of the Governor's priority list! He then did the following, and judging from local radio talk show callers,his popularity increased even more: The State employees union complainedbecause he waited until 3 P.M. before closing State offices and facilitiesand sending non-emergency personnel home during the last blizzard. Theprior Governor would often close offices for the day with just a forecastbefore the first flakes. (Each time the State closes for snow, it coststhe taxpayers about $1 million in wages for no work in return.)LePage was CEO of the Marden's chain of discount family bargain retailstores before election as governor. He noted that State employees gettingoff work early could still find lots of retail stores open to shop. So, heput the State employees on notice by announcing: "If Marden's is open,Maine is open!" He told State employees: "We live in Maine in the winter, for heaven'ssake, and should know how to drive in it. Otherwise, apply for a State jobin Florida!" Governor LePage symbolizes what America needs; Refreshing politicians whoaren't self-serving and who exhibit common sense.  Origins:  Paul LePage is the Republican governor of Maine who was elected to that office in 2010 after serving eight years as the mayor of Waterville.  Prior to his stint as Waterville's mayor, LePage was general manager of Marden's Surplus and Salvage, a discount chain with 14 stores throughout the state of Maine.  Shortly after LePage took office as governor in January 2011 the laudatory piece about him reproduced above began circulating on the Internet; we found its salient points to be a mixture of varying degrees of truthfulness as described below:  Paul LePage   He brought down the house at his inauguration when he shook his fist toward the media box and said, "You're on notice! I've inherited a financially troubled State to run. Observe ... cover what we do ... but don't whine if I don't waste time responding to your every whim just for your amusement." Although this inaugural statement attributed to Governor LePage is widely quoted on Internet sites, it doesn't appear in either the transcript or the video recording of his inaugural address.  Perhaps he said it some other point during his inaugural day ceremonies, but we haven't yet been able to find a source documenting that he did. transcript video     During his campaign for Governor, he was talking to commercial fishermenwho are struggling because of federal fisheries rules. They complainedthat 0bama brought his family to Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park for along Labor Day holiday and found time to meet with union leaders, butwouldn't talk to the fishermen. LePage replied, "I'd tell him to go tohell and get out of my State." While on the campaign trail in September 2010, LePage did make a comment to a group of fishermen about how he would "tell Obama to go to hell," although an Associated Press account of the incident gives it a somewhat different context: Republican gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage told a group of fishermen at a GOP forum that he won't be afraid to tell President Barack Obama to "go to hell." LePage [said] that he regretted the words he chose in the small coastal town of Brooksville but that he wasn't backing down in his criticism of the administration for what he describes as free-spending, antibusiness policies. LePage was responding to a question when he made the remark about Obama, which was captured by a Democratic Party aide who was videotaping the event. "As your governor, you're going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page, saying 'Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell,'" LePage said to applause. LePage's remark was part of a longer discussion of issues at the fishermen's forum. Dennis Blodgett, the town's GOP committee chairman, said much of the discussion focused on "too many federal regulations being crammed down our throats."   The NAACP specifically asked LePage to spend MLK Day visiting black inmates at the Maine State Prison. He told them that hewould meet with ALL inmates, regardless of race, if he were to visit the prison. He arrived at that event & said in front of a TV camera, "If they want to play the race card on me they can kiss my ass." In January 2011, some news accounts reported that Governor LePage had declined an NAACP invitation to attend an NAACP-sponsored Martin Luther King Day event which included a meeting with black inmates at the Maine State Prison, with the governor stating that he would meet with all prisoners or none at all, and telling the organization to "kiss my butt" when they responded that his proposal was unacceptable: Maine Governor Paul LePage declined an NAACP invitation to attend Martin Luther King Day events. Hell be attending a funeral of a State Trooper. NAACP didnt like that, and questioned his support for them. LePage responded ... uhm ... pretty clearly. They are a special interest. End of story ... and Im not going to be held hostage by special interests. And if they want, they can look at my family picture. My son happens to be black, so they can do whatever theyd like about it. The fact of the matter is theres only so many hours in a day, so many hours in a week, and so much that you can do. Hes turned down NAACP invitations before. They invited me to go to the state prison to meet black prisoners. I told them I would go, Id be more than happy to go, but I would meet all prisoners, and that wasnt acceptable to them. So tough Luck. To the suggestion that he had a pattern of slighting the N.A.A.C.P., he replied, Tell them to kiss my butt, adding, If they want to play the race card, come to dinner; my son will talk to them. However, the referenced event was actually a candidates' forum that took place in September 2010, while LePage was still a candidate for governor, not an event to be held on Martin Luther King Day in January 2011, after LePage took office.  The NAACP maintained (and offered documentation demonstrating) that their invitation for LePage to attend the candidates' forum at a prison in Warren made no mention of his meeting only with black prisoners, that LePage never told them he would go to "meet all prisoners" or none at all, that the NAACP never told him his proposal was "unacceptable," and that LePage's staff had simply cited "scheduling conflicts" in declining the NAACP's invitation: Gov. Paul LePage lied in recounting an exchange with the NAACP over an invitation to a campaign forum at a Maine prison, the head of the state organization said. In his now-famous "kiss my butt" television interview, LePage said the NAACP had invited him to meet with black prisoners and that he declined, but told the group, "I would be more than happy to go, but I would meet all prisoners  and that wasn't acceptable to them, so tough luck." That exchange never happened, said Rachel Talbot Ross, state director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and president of the NAACP Portland branch. The e-mailed invitation, dated June 14 and reviewed by The Portland Press Herald, makes no mention of race and says the candidates' forum is simply at the prison in Warren. It was to take place before all the prisoners, Ross said. Ross said neither LePage nor anyone from his campaign indicated the governor would go to "meet all prisoners," because he declined the invitation; and she said the NAACP never said that such a session "wasn't acceptable." Ross said she was baffled by the governor's perception that the forum was for black prisoners only. Her only communication with the campaign about the event was an e-mail from LePage's campaign scheduler on July 15. The e-mail from scheduler Micki Mullen declined the invitation to the Sept. 24 prison event and an NAACP town hall forum on Oct. 15, citing scheduling conflicts. The e-mail doesn't mention any concern about a segregated prison forum, LePage's desire to "meet all prisoners" or any conversation in which the NAACP turned down LePage's proposal. Ross said she was particularly upset by LePage's assertion that the NAACP would view a meeting with all prisoners as not "acceptable." Dan Demeritt, LePage's spokesman, said the then-candidate and his staff had a different "characterization" of the prison event, which eventually was canceled. However, after being read a copy of the invitation provided by Ross, Demeritt could not say where the characterization of the event as a forum for black prisoners only came from. In an interview, LePage initially responded to complaints that he had turned down invitations to two NAACP Martin Luther King Day events in Portland. After dismissing the NAACP as a "special interest" and referencing the prison forum and the supposed exchange over an alternative visit, LePage was asked about concerns that his actions suggested a pattern of ignoring the group. "Tell 'em to kiss my butt," LePage said.   The State employees union complained because he waited until 3 P.M. before closing State offices and facilitiesand sending non-emergency personnel home during the last blizzard. The prior Governor would often close offices for the day with just a forecast before the first flakes. LePage was CEO of the Marden's chain of discount family bargain retailstores before election as governor. He noted that State employees getting off work early could still find lots of retail stores open to shop. So, he put the State employees on notice by announcing: "If Marden's is open, Maine is open!" Governor LePage did keep state offices open until 3:00 P.M. when a winter storm hit Maine in mid-January 2011, with his spokesman stating that the governor's rule of thumb was that "If Marden's is open, Maine is open": State workers may want to invest in some snow tires. Gov. Paul LePage seems less willing than his predecessor to close down state offices in bad weather. Case in point: During [a] storm which deposited 12-16 inches of snow in Kennebec County, LePage kept state workers at their posts until 3 p.m. Under former Gov. John Baldacci, they might not have gone to work in the first place. Baldacci received criticism during his tenure for appearing too eager to close down state government during a snowstorm. LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt explained that LePage, former general manager of Marden's Surplus & Salvage, expects state workers to get to work just like employees in the private sector. "The rule of thumb is: If Marden's is open, Maine is open," Demeritt said. In 2007, when a snowstorm prompted Baldacci to close state offices, the state controller calculated that the state paid stay-at-home workers about $1 million in salary and benefits.   Last updated:  9 April 2015    Murphy, Edward D.  "NAACP Leader Says LePage Lied."   Kennebec Journal.  19 January 2011.    Sharp, David.  "Maine Gov. Candidate: I'd Tell Obama to Go to Hell."   Businessweek.  29 September 2010.    Sharp, David.  "Maine Storm Packs Heavier-Than-Anticipated Snow."   The Boston Globe.  12 January 2011.    The Washington Post.  "Governor on NAACP Flap: 'Tell Them to Kiss My Butt.'"   15 January 2011.    WCSH-TV [Portland].  "NAACP Refutes LePage's Version of Prison Invitation."   14 January 2011.