State Dept. Employee Candace Claiborne Arrested on Treason Charges?
In mid-April 2017, multiple online sources reported that former U.S. State Department employee Candace Claiborne (purportedly an employee of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) was arrested on charges of treason: Barack Obama Hillary Clinton   The indictment in question was real, although many online reports covering it were inaccurate. Claiborne was arrested on specific charges related to improperly receiving gifts in exchange for her providing information to Chinese agents  obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the F.B.I.   not "treason," as noted in a Justice Department press release about the case: press release A federal complaint was unsealed charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents. The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBIs Washington Field Office. Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits, said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division. Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided, said U.S. Attorney Phillips. As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts," said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. "The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust. Claiborne is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency. Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claibornes USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Years gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.  Claiborne wasn't an "employee" of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, other than in the sense that she held a mid-level (not a "deep state operative") job at the State Department, which was headed by Clinton from 2009-2013 (in her position as Secretary of State) and is a part of the executive branch, which was headed by Barack Obama from 2009-2017 (in his position as President of the United States).  By that standard, Claiborne would also have been an "employee" of Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson, as the affidavit that accompanied the criminal complaint against her noted she was still working for the State Department at the time of her arrest: affidavit Candace Claiborne is a 60-year-old Office Management Specialist with the Department of State. She is a United States citizen who resides and works in Washington, D.C. Claiborne has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and law enforcement from the University of the District of Columbia. She joined the State Department in 1999, and has served in a variety of places, including Washington, D.C., Baghdad, Iraq, Beijing and Shanghai, China, and Khartoum, Sudan. According to State Department records, Claiborne has language proficiency in Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish. She currently works at the Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C. in the Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts. Claiborne has held a TOP SECRET security clearance since 1999. Candace Claiborne pled "not guilty" at her 29 March 2017 court appearance, and a preliminary hearing for her case was scheduled for 18 April 2017.  Dmitry, Baxter.  "Former Hillary Clinton Employee Arrested on Treason Charges."
  YourNewsWire.com.  12 April 2017. Gerstein, Josh.  "State Department Aide Charged for Hiding Gifts from Chinese Agents."
  Politico.  29 March 2017. Miller, John.  "Obamas 'Deep State' Operative Just Got Arrested for Committing Treason  The First Domino Has Fallen."
  America's Freedom Fighters.  29 March 2017.
 The United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs.  "State Department Employee Arrested and Charged With Concealing Extensive Contacts With Foreign Agents."
  29 March 2017. United States Code, Title 18.  "Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, And Subversive Activities."
  Accessed 14 April 2017.
Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention In February 2022, a meme supposedly featuring a quote from comedian George Carlin about "participation trophies" was recirculated on social media: participation trophies   This is not a genuine quote from Carlin.  The above-displayed meme reads: "Here's an idea for you to ignore. Instead of giving kids participation trophies teach them activities where the result is the reward. Our society has lost sight of what's truly important and it's about damned time we found it again." We weren't able to find any record of Carlin uttering this phrase. When we looked for the origins of the quote, we did not find an old stand-up routine or a passage from one of Carlin's books. Instead, we traced it back to a 2016 post by Laurie Neverman on the Common Sense Home website. 2016 post by Laurie Neverman on the Common Sense Home website   Neverman wrote that she originally posted this message to her personal Facebook page in September 2015 and that since then a number of Facebook pages have attempted to take credit for it: I wrote the passage above back in September 2015 and posted it on my personal Facebook wall. Friends gave me so much feedback on it that I shared it on the Common Sense Home Facebook page. Then a couple of huge Facebook pages took it and put their names on it (with no credit to me, naughty folks) and it was wildly popular on their pages, too. Given all the people who seemed to approve of the concept, I decided to write a post on it. This frequently happens with misattributed quotes. A message will get posted by a relatively unknown person and then, in an attempt to legitimize that opinion and spread that message to a wider audience, the words will be erroneously placed into the mouth of a celebrity. For example, Clint Eastwood did not say "the problem is not guns," Jim Carrey did not call for the "media to close for 30 days," and Kurt Russell did not write a poem that opposed defunding the police. the problem is not guns media to close for 30 days poem that opposed defunding the police While Carlin did not say this about "participation trophies," he did express similar sentiments during a stand-up routine about how "every child is special." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Xtk7ALaUIIt's worth noting that while the culture war skirmishes over participation trophies is relatively new, participation trophies themselves are not. Participation trophies have been given out since at least the 1920s. Participation trophies have been given out at least the 1920s   Fatsis, Stefan. Weve Been Handing Out Participation Trophies for 100 Years. Slate, Apr. 2019. slate.com, https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/participation-trophy-history-world-war-i.html. No More Gold Stars - Creating Real World Rewards. Common Sense Home, 2 Dec. 2016, https://commonsensehome.com/no-more-gold-stars/. Urban Legends Reference Pages: Inboxer Rebellion (DarkProfits)  Claim:  Your credit card has been used to place an order with DarkProfits.com.  .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004   .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]  Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.   No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com. joe job DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull. illegal goods Child Porn Last updated:  30 January 2004 The notion of counting the number of green jobs in America made us think, oddly enough, of a middle-age guy trying for cool by pairing a sport coat with blue jeans. Not easy. Yet quite matter-of-factly, while touting a clean energy jobs bill she introduced, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin made the following statement Jan. 22, 2014: Over 3 million Americans are employed in the growing green-collar workforce, including in clean energy and sustainability, which is more than the amount of people working in the fossil fuel industry. When we put the Wisconsin Democrats claim to Daniel Kish at the Institute for Energy Research, he told us that both green and fossil fuel industry job numbers are sometimes thrown around with abandon. This gets really dicey real quick, he said. Everybodys got their dueling banjos. Thats PolitiFact Wisconsins kind of music. Baldwins evidence To back his boss claim, Baldwin spokesman John Kraus cited two reports. Both are from solid sources, though they mix sports coats and -- er, apples and oranges -- a bit. 1.Federal report In 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics embarked on an annual tally of green jobs. The agency had the advantage of considering a definition of green jobs proffered a year earlier by the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C. think tank, which produced its own green jobs count. The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveyed 120,000 business and government establishments within 325 industries that were identified as potentially producing green goods or providing green services. Those surveyed said whether they produced green goods and services and the percentage of their revenue or employment associated with that output. Green goods and services were defined as those that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. They fall into one or more of the following five groups: 1) Production   of  energy  from  renewable  sources; 2) energy efficiency; 3) pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse  gas reduction,  and  recycling  and  reuse;  4) natural   resources conservation;  and  5) environmental compliance,  education  and training, and public awareness. So, the list of green jobs is quite varied, including jobs in areas such as farming; home construction; electric, solar and other types of power generation; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; urban mass transit; newspaper publishing; advertising and public relations services; waste treatment and disposal; museums and zoos; and social advocacy organizations.The Bureau of Labor Statistics produced its second -- and, it turns out, final -- green jobs report in March 2013. It estimated that employment associated with the production of green goods and services -- full- and part-time jobs -- exceeded 3.4 million in 2011. Manufacturing, with 507,000 green jobs, was the largest sector. Goods produced by those jobs included air conditioning and refrigeration equipment meeting selected standards, hybrid cars and parts, and pollution mitigation equipment. Kish, who is senior vice president for policy at the industry-backed Institute for Energy Research, pointed out that 886,000 of the 3.4 million were government jobs -- not jobs, he said, in which people are making or installing windmills and solar panels. Green, Kish said, is a political word, used by politicians and advocates, that is truly elusive. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is well-established as the official jobs counter for the federal government. The 2013 report, for the number of green jobs in 2011, remains the latest available. That report said that because of budget cuts, no more green counts would be done. 2.Think tank study The Brookings Institution report we noted above was produced in 2011, so its a little dated. Brookings estimated that in 2010, there were 2.7 million green jobs -- that is, jobs that directly contributed to the production of goods and services that had an environmental benet. Brookings didnt do a count of fossil fuel industry jobs, but it did make a comparison using federal government tallies. Its report said that in 2010, there were 1.3 million jobs that directly supported the production of fossil fuel-based energy, derivative manufactured products and machinery. If all wholesale and retail distributors, transporters and other workers -- such as gas station employees -- were included, the fossil fuel tally would be 2.4 million jobs, Brookings said. Brookings scholar Jonathan Rothwell told us some critics view the think tanks definition of green jobs as too expansive. For example, some 350,000 public transportation jobs in the green tally include not only bus drivers but secretaries, janitors, executives and all other employees who work for bus companies, he said. Brookings' definition of green jobs was very broad and included any economic activity that has an environmental benefit -- from public transportation to waste management, Rothwell acknowledged, adding that because only a small portion of energy comes from green sources, fossil fuel employees are a much larger share of the energy sector's workforce. But Rothwell noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics adopted a similar definition when it did green jobs counts. And we note that BLS arrived at a roughly similar green jobs estimate. So, the most recent federal report backs the first part of Baldwins statement, that there are more than 3 million green jobs. The older think tank report she cites doesnt say there were more than 3 million green jobs, but does say that green jobs outnumbered fossil fuel industry jobs as of 2010. Otherviews One thing to underline here is that counting green jobs is a different sort of animal. As CNN/Money observed when the first Bureau of Labor Statistics green jobs report came out in 2012, comparing green jobs to another singular sector isn't really fair. The green jobs survey took into account a wide variety of jobs in over 300 different industries. As for the oil and gas industry itself, a July 2013 report was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and natural gas industry, that was an update of a report done two years earlier. The later report said there were 2.59 million jobs in the oil and natural gas industry in 2011. PricewaterhouseCoopers said it utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau for its study. The study noted that the oil and natural gas industry encompasses a number of activities that span separate industry classifications in government economic data. For example, oil and natural gas exploration and production is included in the mining sector; and oil refining is part of the manufacturing sector. The study defined the oil and gas industry to include all such activities. The petroleum institute noted to us criticism of how the federal government defines green jobs, including an editorial in Investors Business Daily that called the annual count phony. A final note: In November 2012, U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, made a claim similar to but more broad than Baldwins, saying there were more people working in clean and green energy than in oil and gas in this country. That was before the latest reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and American Petroleum Institute that estimated green and fossil fuel jobs for 2011. PolitiFact Rhode Island rated the statement True. Our colleagues noted that at the time, the number of green jobs as estimated by BLS exceeded the number of oil and gas jobs estimated by the petroleum institute. Our rating Baldwin said: Over 3 million Americans are employed in the growing green-collar workforce, which is more than the number of people working in the fossil fuel industry. The latest estimates are for 2011. The federal government says there were 3.4 million green jobs, while a national oil and gas trade group says there were 2.59 million oil and gas jobs. We rate Baldwins statement True. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. On 10 August 2009, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer published an op-ed piece in USA Today under the title "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate," in which they criticized those who had been engaging in efforts to disrupt debate over health insurance reform legislation (which later became widely known as "Obamacare"). op-ed Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer wrote (in part): [I]t is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views  but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades. That op-ed prompted Dennis L. Guthrie, an attorney with the Charlotte, North Carolina, law firm of Guthrie, Davis, Henderson & Staton, to pen a (primarily ad hominem) critical letter to Rep. Pelosi the following day, images of which soon began circulating online.  Dear Ms. Pelosi: I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda. I am a soon to be 65 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam, as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you. You obviously haven't read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough's book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution. I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your public service. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband's investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payers expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States; you only subtract therefrom. I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband's canned tuna and pineapple - produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have. I await your defeat in the next election with glee. Dont ever use the term un-American again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60s and 70s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress. I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many.   We contacted Mr. Guthrie at the address included in the letterhead on which the letter was printed, and he confirmed that he did indeed write and send such a letter to Rep. Pelosi. The letter circulated again in 2019 via social media, with one minor revision: The line "I am a soon to be 65 year-old" was changed to "I am a soon to be a [sic] 75 year-old." Pelosi, Nancy and Steny Hoyer.  "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate."
  USA Today.  10 August 2009. Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 The sculpture pictured below is real, and it was indeed crafted by an Iraqi sculptor from bronze recovered by melting down statues of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the accompanying explanatory text is quite misleading: The Iraqi sculptor was not "forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam," he did not produce the memorial shown because he was "so grateful that the Americans liberated his country," and the monument was not his idea. Members of the U.S. Army paid the sculptor, who had previously worked on a few other Saddam statues, to create the work pictured according to a design of their choosing: Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] This picture of the statue was made by an Iraqi artist named Kalat, who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad. This artist was so grateful that the Americans liberated his country, he melted 3 of the fallen Saddam heads and made a memorial statue dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades. Kalat worked on this night and day for several months. To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms. It is currently on display outside the palace that is now home to the 4th Infantry division. It will eventually be shipped and shown at the memorial museum in Fort Hood, Texas.  As part of the U.S. Army's Task Force Ironhorse, the 4th Infantry Division was deployed in Iraq for most of 2003, participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, and saw many of their comrades killed and wounded in the violence that followed the end of major combat operations. In mid-2003, while the 4th Infantry Division was headquartered in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown, Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Fuss, the division's top noncommissioned officer, headed up a project to commemorate the unit's dead and conceived of a memorial featuring the figure of a forlorn soldier kneeling to mourn before empty helmet, boots, and rifle  an array of objects that traditionally represents a fallen compatriot: Task Force Ironhorse 4th Infantry    Needing a sculptor to carry out his vision, Sgt. Maj. Fuss and other Americans asked around for local talent, and an Iraqi contractor recommended a 27-year-old artist named Khalid Alussy to them. As it turned out, Mr. Alussy was one of several artisans who had worked on a pair of 50-foot bronze statues of Saddam Hussein on horseback that flanked the gateway on the main road into the presidential palace compound in Tikrit, the site of the 4th Infantry Division's temporary headquarters. Commissioned by 4th Infantry Division officers to fashion the memorial conceptualized by Sgt. Maj. Fuss, Khalid Alussy (whose first name is also rendered in English as 'Kalat') took the assignment not out love for Americans, but because he needed the money: The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since."I made the statues of Saddam  even though I didn't want to  because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons." Mr. Alussy's initial asking price was far higher than the officers had expected. He blamed the steep price of bronze. So the Americans decided to recycle the bronze Hussein-on-horseback twins. "We figured we were going to blow them up anyway, so why not take the bronze and use it for our own statues?" recalls Sgt. Fuss. "That way we could take something that honored Saddam and use it to remember all of those we lost getting rid of him." Without having to supply the metal, Mr. Alussy agreed to do the job for $8,000. By comparison, the former regime paid him the equivalent of several hundred dollars for his work on the Hussein statues. To finance the project, Sgt. Fuss publicized it in the task force's internal newspaper and asked officers to get soldiers to contribute $1 each. Within weeks, he raised $30,000.1 In July 2003, Army engineers blew up the two Saddam statues, cut them into pieces, melted them down, and delivered them to Mr. Alussy's house. (The delivery was done furtively in case Mr. Alussy's neighbors proved to be less than thrilled about his being in the employ of the American military.) Using a photograph of 1st Sgt. Glen Simpson as a model for the depiction of the kneeling soldier, Mr. Alussy began his work on the monument; near the end, another segment was added to his task: As the work neared completion, Sgt. Fuss and the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, decided it needed a clearer connection to Iraq. The general suggested adding a small child to symbolize Iraq's new future, Sgt. Fuss says. When they told the artist they wanted another statue, Mr. Alussy demanded $10,000 more. "He learned capitalism real fast," Sgt. Fuss says.1 After four months' worth of night and weekend labor, Mr. Alussy completed his assignment, and the statues were installed in an entranceway inside the 4th Infantry Division's headquarters in Tikrit. In February 2004 the statues were flown to the 4th Infantry Division Museum at the unit's home base of Fort Hood, Texas. Museum Fort Hood Somewhere along the line, this coda was added to the original e-mail: Do you know why we don't hear about this in the news? Because it is heart warming and praise worthy. The media avoids it because it does not have the shock effect that a flashed breast or controversy of politics does. But we can do something about it. We can pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our brave military who are making a difference. As Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News pointed out in a later column, the Kalat story and photo ran in that paper on 27 March 2004 and was afterwards picked up and reprinted by newspapers all over the U.S. Additional information:   <!-- Original changelog: Last updated:  25 February 200616 January 2004 Updated: 16 February 2004 11 June 2004 - updated 17 October 2005 - added info about media reporting of story 25 February 2006: reformatted 16 December 2009 - updated Add'l Info links -->   Blow, Steve.  "Sometimes, Facts Get in Way of Media-Bashing."
  The Dallas Morning News.  23 January 2005  (p. B1).   1.  Dreazen, Yochi J.  "In This Monument to Dead, the Medium Really Is the Message."
  The Wall Street Journal.  8 March 2004  (p. A1).   Kibbey, Spc. Benjamin R.  "Changing Faces: Statue Honors Fallen Heroes."
  Army News Service.  6 January 2004.   Miles, Donna.  "Memorial to Honor Fallen Task Force Ironhorse Troops."
  American Forces Press Service.  20 February 2004. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated:  2 July 2008