Says Mitt Romney wants to add $2 trillion to defense budget that the military hasnt asked for.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he plans to increase defense spending by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years if hes elected president. In the final debate of the campaign, moderator Bob Scheiffer asked Romney, Where are you going to get the money?Romney said he would take it from other parts of the budget -- by abolishing Obamacare and by changing Medicaid to a block grant and turning it over to the states.President Barack Obama said Romneys plan for more defense spending is a bad idea, because it isnt necessary. Romney wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for, Obama said.In this fact-check, we examine the claim that Romney is promoting something the top brass dont want.Romney has outlined out hisnational security policyon his website. There, he warned that restoring the military will not be a cost-free process, and said he will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts ... with the goal of setting core defense spending  meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development  at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.Whats 4 percent worth?The Pentagons budget is expected to run in the range of 3.2 to 3.5 percent of GDP in the next fiscal year. According to theCenter for a New American Security, a group with ties to both Republican and Democratic administrations, even a gradual ramp up to 4 percent would increase defense spending by $2.1 trillion over the next ten years, asreported by CNN.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group focused on deficit reduction, uses that number too, as do other budget think tanks. Romney seems to accept it, so as far as the $2 trillion figure goes, it seems reasonably accurate.In the past, when asked about increasing defense spending in tough economic times, the Romney campaign has emphasized that the 4-percent goal will take some time to achieve.While the campaign website describes the goal as a floor, campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul called it a target in an email to aBoston Globereporter. The first priority, Saul wrote, is to reverse Obama-era defense cuts.In the same article, one Romney adviser, Mackenzie Eaglen with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, Thats not a hard number and anybody would be crazy to suggest it is. It would have to be a very slow ramp-up and they would be hard-pressed to even achieve a 4 percent base budget by the end of the first term.This suggests there is some flexibility on Romneys part, although the candidate himself has not expressed that.What the Pentagon is asking forIn the debate, Romney said, Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285.In fact, the 313-ship plan reflects a 2005 strategic review. In April, theSecretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, presented a new program that sets a goal of 300 ships. Mabuss remarks came at a moment when Romney had been vocal in his opposition to the new approach.A lot of this criticism is based on either incomplete and/or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world and in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he said.The presidents budget calls for $487 billion in defense savings between now and 2021. His defense secretary, Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, have both spoken up for the plan, as have the heads of all five branches of the military.We are developing today the Joint Force the nation will need in 2020,Dempsey told the Senatebudget committee. We will be a military that is able to do more than one thing at a timeto win any conflict, anywhere.Panetta acknowledged that the budget comes with risks but he said the departments plan was based on looking first at the threats the nation might face.The department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation.,Panetta told the budget committee. We are at that point in history. That's the reality of the world we live in.Administration critics say the reality was just the reverse. A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation said, the administration set a goal of slashing the defense budget, and then crafted a strategy justifying such draconian cuts.The president is the commander-in-chief. Panetta works for Obama and the military answers to him. To the analysts at the Heritage Foundation, the chain of command says it all. But in the past, when military commanders have disagreed with presidents, they have found ways to get their complaints to the public.This is not to say that all commanders are pleased with the trade-offs they face. But Nora Bensahel, deputy director of studies at the Center for New American Security, said she believes the president put a great deal of time into discussions with the military, and by and large, the commanders support the plan.Its hard to see daylight between the military and the White House on this, Bensahel said.Broadly speaking, it is always possible that the service chiefs would disagree over funding of individual programs but that is within the overall budget limits.Our rulingThe president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadnt asked for.Military leaders have testified in support of the presidents spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.We rate the statement True.
In 2015, a number of social media posts and email forwards made their way to Snopes HQ: This has been on Facebook since at least August 2015, claiming Eisenhower's mother was of mixed ancestry (using offensive term "mulatto"). A brief review of some sources turned up no evidence, though her family was mixed generations before. Strictly speaking, this would not make her a "mulatto" woman as claimed. There is a post on facebook that says Dwight Eisenhower's (34th President)mother was a mulatto named Ida Stover. Ida Stover is his mother but was she a mulatto? There for Obama is not the first Black president. Was shemulato?   Hey did you guys know our 34th President Dwight Eisenhower's mother was "mulatto" #FunFact #FunFact    spicy mayo (@wo0ski) August 28, 2015 August 28, 2015 On 27 August 2015 a Facebook user shared the above-reproduced image, claiming that the mother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower was an "orphaned mulatto woman named Ida Stover." Although the claim was novel to many social media users, questions about Eisenhower's racial background were not: for example, an 8 January 2004New York Times article titled "Surprises in the Family Tree" examined why the topic of race and ancestry is sometimes complicated across American history: shared article "Most of the workers in colonial America in the 17th and early 18th centuries were indentured servants, white and black," said Dr. John B. Boles, a professor of history at Rice University in Houston and the editor of "The Blackwell Companion to the American South" (2001). Since there was not a clear distinction between slavery and servitude at the time, he said, "biracial camaraderie" often resulted in children. The idea that blacks were property did not harden until around 1715 with the rise of the tobacco economy, by which time there was a small but growing population of free families of color. Dr. Boles estimated that by 1860 there were 250,000 free black or mixed-race individuals The article only briefly mentioned Eisenhower and Stover, in a manner that referenced the rumor without providing conclusivedetail: It is incontrovertible that America is a multiracial society, from the founding father Alexander Hamilton (the son of a mixed-race woman from the British West Indies) to Essie Mae Washington-Williams, 78, a retired schoolteacher, who, the late Senator Strom Thurmond's family [has] acknowledged, is his daughter. And for decades there have been questions about the possible mixed-race ancestry of Ida Stover, Dwight D. Eisenhower's mother. According to that article, there were merely "questions" about Stover's racial ancestry (which had lingered for "decades," seemingly without answer).  Wikipedia also addresses the rumor on a page titled "African-American heritage of United States presidents," where Eisenhower is listed under presidents with unverified claims of African ancestry, alongsideThomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. The page is prefaced with a note that the claims originated primarily with "amateur historians," were not "verified by reliable sources in peer-reviewed publications," and that "[m]ainline historians do not support these claims": Wikipedia The academic consensus of historians is that no president other than Obama has had recent (from the colonial period in U.S. history or after) African ancestry; it rejects claims to the contrary. TheTimes' 2004 article was published well before the candidacy of Barack Obama, but rumors of Eisenhower's purported African roots predictably surfaced alongsideObama's then-burgeoning campaign. A 5 February 2008 Pittsburgh-Post Gazette article emphasized that such claims were not considered credible by historians and geneologists: article In addition to Jefferson, the books, magazines and newspaper articles found on the Web name five other U.S. presidents who may have had black ancestry, but never publicly acknowledged it: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower.Van Hall, associate professor of history at the University of Pittsburgh, said it is unlikely that most of the men on the list had black ancestry because historians know their genealogy pretty well. While he concedes he hasn't researched the issue, Larry Glasco, also an associate professor of history at Pitt, is also skeptical of the stories. "I would guess if [the stories] were really true we'd have heard a lot more about them," Dr. Glasco said. "There would have been a lot more written about them in professional research literature." Another portion of that 2008 article notedthat the claimsshould be simpleto resolve, given recent advances in genetic mapping technology: [Russell Riley, presidential scholar at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs] said with today's DNA mapping techniques it would be easy to prove or disprove these claims. There was no such thing as DNA mapping when the late historian J.A. Rogers wrote his book, "Five Black Presidents," self-published in 1965, which serves as the basis for most of the more recently published works on the subject. The set of larger rumors (mentioning but not focusing on Eisenhower) were addressed again byNPR in a June 2008 segment titled "Has America Already Had a Black President?" which primarily explored the reasons behind (and not the credibility of) such rumors. The election of President Obama predictably reinvigorated the rumors, and a 5 November 2008Emporia Gazette article described the claims ascomprising mostly visual evidence (i.e., photographs of Ida Stover) and gaps in her family tree: addressed article The rumor was his dad was mixed, coming out of Africa, [Emporia State University sociology professor Nate] Terrell said. "But his mother, Ida (Elizabeth) Stover Eisenhower, was mulatto. And when I show people pictures of her they say, 'Oh well, we can tell. Just by looking at mom, we can tell she was mixed.'" The photograph reputed to be of Eisenhowers mother and father was published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in conjunction with several articles run on the subject of black presidents. Although [Dr. Leroy] Vaughn does not assert that Eisenhower was of mixed ancestry, his 2006 book, "Black People and Their Place in World History" states there may have been five black U.S. Presidents, according to the online news, The Daily Voice, Black America's Daily News Source.  Elsewhere on the internet, an undated page on the web site FrenchCreoles.com presented the same shallow reasoning: that Ida Stover visually appeared to be biracial, and her ancestry was not well-documented. Moreover, the site asserted that one family name (Link, which is not an uncommon surname) was common among both white and black families: page While the more "mainstream" historians remain skeptical, these type of allegations garner the most interest among African Americans primarily because they recognize all the possibilities of truth in the assertions. Most all seem to agree that our nation's 34th president Dwight Eisenhower and Warren G. Harding, our 29th U.S. president, are the most likely candidates. It is said that Eisenhower's mother, Ida Elizabeth Stover Eisenhower was a woman of color. Something about a mysterious maternal grandfather who carried the surname of Link, and there being only two Links families in the Virginia town they originated in  a black one and a white one. And something about interviews conducted with elderly area blacks during the 1950's who long remembered the references to Eisenhower's mother as "that black Links gal". But perhaps the evidence that raised the proverbial eyebrow was the 1885 wedding day photograph of the president's parents which many say is all the evidence they need A site calledRasta Livewire made similar,rumor-based assertions about Ida Stover's racial ancestry: assertions Here's the problem: In Mount Sidney to this day there are both black families and white families with the surname "Link." Many years ago, a black researcher discovered that Ida's mother was from the black Links, a fact washed away in time by two things: 1. Her mother died when she was five years old. 2. She went to live with a white family after. 3. She moved to Kansas while in her teens. 4. She married a white man. While rumors about President Eisenhower's purportedly mixed-race maternal lineage became more popular during and after the election of President Obama, the claims remain unsupported and unsubtantiated. The primary sources for the claim werea 50-year-old self-published book and many decades of repetition, while substantive evidence for the assertion hinged largely on Ida Stover's 1885 wedding photograph (which many viewers believed hinted at a mixed racial lineage) as well as the concurrent existence of black and white families with the surname Link in her hometown during her youth. Neither source was a convincing evidentiary finding, and in the time since the rumors began, the advancement of DNA research has made itfairly easy to resolve such questions. To date, no one has conclusively proved President Eisenhower wasn't part black, but neither has anyone presented any clear evidence affirming he was. Claim:  Former New York mayor Ed Koch delivered a radio address on anti-semitism.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.  Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.  Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.  Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.  In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.  Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.  I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPRs reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.  I will no longer lend financial support to New Yorks Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.  I will not watch ABCs World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.  BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.  Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.  Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.  I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish. Origins:  Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989,   mayor  was a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio until his death in 2013.  On 7 December 2002, he delivered a commentary dealing with his perception that western society is experiencing its most"virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin" and offered a list of new year's resolutions regarding people and institutions he would shun for being anti-Israel.  Transcripts of that commentary (reproduced above) have since been posted to a variety of web sites. Bloomberg Radio Just to be sure this information was accurate, we contacted Bloomberg Radio for verification and received an affirmative response: Hello and thank you for your inquiry. Former Mayor Ed Koch is a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio.  On 7 December 2002, Mr. Koch delivered a commentary on our "Bloomberg On the Weekend" broadcast in which he postulated a growing anti-semitism in America and elsewhere in the western world.  He asserted that public broadcasting  had an anti-Israeli attitude and declared he would no longer contribute.  I hope this answers your question, and I invite you to listen to us each weekend for Ed Koch and much more.   If you are in the greater New York area you will find us on Bloomberg Radio, WBBR, 1130 on your AM radio dial. Elsewhere we can be heard on the internet at http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio. http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio Sincerely,Wes Richards, Host. Last updated:  6 January 2014 In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. Claim:  Gasoline purchasers who fail to press the "Clear" button on gas pumps after refueling risk additional charges appearing on their credit/debit cards.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2008] Jim just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers.  She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most of us do). She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2 $50 charges added in addition to her purchase. Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas!  To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them!  [Collected via e-mail, February 2010] A friend just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers. She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most ofus do).She received her receipt like normal. However, when she checked her statement, there were 2  $50.00 charges added in addition to her purchase.  Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas! To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card. Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them. I had never noticed the clear button but I gotgas the other day and sure enough it is there.  I shall be using it from now on. Origins:  This heads-up about pressing the 'clear' button after purchasing gasoline at a pump using a credit or debit card began appearing in inboxes in early May 2008.  Those in the know say there's nothing to this notion that pressing the 'clear' button after refueling will safeguard the pump's user from having his credit card accessed by future users, or indeed, have any other effect. As W. Michael Hardin, an employee of Dresser Wayne, a manufacturer of gas station fuel dispensing units, says: "If a fuel dispenser is operating in its normal mode, the way it was designed to work, your transaction is complete as soon as you hang  up the nozzle.  There is no need to do anything else at that point or press any buttons.  If for some reason you hang up the nozzle incorrectly, and the transaction does not complete, a receipt will not be printed, which would be an indication that something is wrong."   In other words, a properly functioning gas pump will conclude its transaction when its nozzle is returned to its cradle. There is no magic to be had from pressing the 'clear' button: a gas pump that is working the way it should will have already closed the transaction by that point, and a misfunctioning one isn't going to be prompted into righting itself by your mashing the 'clear' button a few times.  Look instead to your receipt. That the pump dispensed one after you recradled the gas nozzle is a sign that all went well. If a receipt does not present itself, a trip inside the gas station to discuss the matter with the clerk on duty is in order. Some have been taken in by the false alert, such as the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office which was moved to post the warning on its web site. (That office did subsequently post a retraction which set the matter straight.) retraction While some dishonest gas station employees have run additional charges through customers' credit and debit cards, this form of crime is usually a matter of the miscreants' charging some cards two or more times to cover for other fuel purchases paid in cash (which was pocketed by the thieving employees, with the false charges laid against the credit or debit cards of victims used to account for the decrease in the station's fuel inventory). In May 2008, two employees of a gas station in Hopatcong, New Jersey, were caught and charged with theft for attempting to run such a scheme. However, a far more likely threat to the sanctity of one's credit or debit card at a gas station is posed by those who, during the process of refueling their own vehicles, surreptitiously affix 'skimmers' to card-reading mechanisms at gas pumps. (Skimmers collect data from the magnetic strips of cards, information which is later copied to counterfeit cards and used to empty bank accounts or to run up charges against credit accounts.) After installing the skimmers, the thieves quietly withdraw and return later to retrieve their data-enriched devices. Should you discover you've been the victim of any sort of credit or debit card fraud, contact your bank immediately.  The sooner you can get in touch with them, and the more information you can provide about where you used the now-compromised card, the better. Regarding debit cards, keep in mind that they do not afford users the same level of protection against fraud that credit cards do. As a general precaution, make it your practice to examine your checking account history and balance several times a month rather than waiting for a statement to arrive in the mail. Report lost cards or suspected unauthorized use immediately. (Generally, the faster you report an incorrect or fraudulent charge, the less you will be liable for.)  Consider using credit cards instead of debit cards whenever possible because it is often easier to get unauthorized charges reversed from such instruments. Also, having the problem isolated to your credit card rather than your debit card means not having to deal with the headache of bounced checks during the time it takes to get the matter straightened out. Barbara "credit where credit's due" Mikkelson Last updated:   19 June 2014    Moszczynski, Joe.  "Four More Step Up in Gas Station Credit Scam."   The [Newark] Star-Ledger.  15 May 2008  (p. 41). In April 2021, users of the online forum Reddit discussed, shared, and pored over a striking meme that purported to contrast the perception Americans hold about their country's superlative status among the nations of the world with the (supposedly) much more sobering reality.  The meme was posted to the "/facepalm" sub-reddit  a discussion board dedicated to displays of stupidity  on April 12. It read as follows: posted What the USA thinks it's #1 in:- Healthcare 30th- Happiness 19th- Education 26th- Life Expectancy 46th- Free Press 42nd- Freedom Index 17th- Climate Change Performance 59/60 What it IS #1 in:- Incarceration- Gas consumption- Oil consumption- Military spending   The meme originated in a widely-shared tweet posted back in October 2020, and was also reposted on Facebook at that time. This fact check will focus specifically on the second half of the meme, "What the U.S. is #1 in"  the potentially surprising and arguably dubious superlatives attached to the United States. tweet Facebook On the whole, the meme contained a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy, much of which depended on the way in which certain rankings were viewed. For example, the U.S. spends by far the most of any country on its military, in absolute terms, but not when overall government spending or the size of the American economy is taken into account.  The United States has comfortably the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, according to two reliable sources. In 2018, the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization which gathers data on imprisonment but also advocates against mass incarceration, reported that the U.S. has an incarceration rate of 698 per 100,000 people. That was a significantly higher rate than that of the second-ranked nation, El Salvador, which had an incarceration rate of 614, or Turkmenistan, where the rate was 583 per 100,000 people. nonprofit reported Similarly, the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London, also ranked the U.S. first in 2018, with an incarceration rate of 639 per 100,000 people, with El Salvador and Turkmenistan again ranked second and third, respectively. The U.S. also had the highest outright number of incarcerate persons in the world, regardless of overall population, at just over two million people. ranked The underlying data is now three years old, so this assessment comes with something of a health warning. However, given the gap between the United States and other nations in 2018, the ranking is unlikely to have been upended since then. It's not made clear in the meme, but it is reasonable to assume this claim refers to vehicle gas  that is, automobile gasoline  consumption. On that premise, the claim is true. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a federal agency, the U.S. consumed 9.3 million barrels of automobile gasoline per day, in 2018  the greatest amount of any country. consumed That's the equivalent of 1.2 gallons per person per day, which is also the world's second-highest rate of consumption, even after population is taken into account. Canada, with 1 gallon per person per day, and the United Arab Emirates, with 0.9 gallons per person per day, were the third- and fourth-ranked nations, respectively. The place with the highest per capita consumption of automobile gasoline in 2018 was Gibraltar, a British territory located on the southern tip of Spain, with nearly 1.3 gallons per person per day. Since Gibraltar has such a small population (only 33,718 people lived there in 2018) it's quite possible that the per capita consumption figures are skewed. Gibraltar is also not a sovereign nation, so a further argument exists for placing the U.S. at the top of the per capita consumption rankings. Again, the underlying data is a few years old and comes with a health warning, but the gap between the U.S. and other nations is unlikely to have been bridged since 2018. This claim is a , with the same disclaimer that the most recent reliable figures available date from 2018. The best source available here is, again, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which reported that, in 2018, the U.S. consumed 20.5 million barrels (861.5 million gallons) of oil per day. That's 20% of the entire world's consumption, and comfortably the highest volume of any nation.  reported However, when population is taken into account, the U.S. is not the world's most voracious consumer of oil, which is defined by the Energy Information Administration as including crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels. Those 20.5 million barrels equate to 2.6 gallons of oil per person per day. Several other countries had higher rates of consumption than that, including Singapore (11 gallons per person per day), Kuwait (4.3 gallons per person per day), Saudi Arabia (3.8 gallons per person per day), and Canada (2.9 gallons per person per day). A handful of very small countries rounded out the top 10, suggesting that statistical outliers in small populations might again be playing a role.  higher rates . According to figures collected by the Stockholm International Peace Institute, a leading think tank based in Sweden, the U.S. had by far the world's highest military expenditure in 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, spending close to $732 billion. China was ranked a distant second, with $261 billion, while India and Russia spent $71 billion and $65 billion, respectively.  figures However, the U.S. ranked second to Israel when population is taken into account, spending $2,224 per person on its military, in comparison with Israel's $2,402 per person. The U.S. also ranked outside the top 20 for military spending as a percentage of total government spending (at 9.4%) and outside the top 10 for military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the overall size of the economy, with 3.4%. In December 2019, we received multiple enquiries from readers about remarks that U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly made on the subject of wind power. In particular, readers asked us about a Dec. 23 meme published by the left-leaning "Occupy Democrats" Facebook page.  meme The caption that accompanied the meme read: "Yes, Trump really DID say this last night ..." The meme itself contained the introductory line "Future generations will look back on Trump's latest idiotic wind turbines rant in awe and horror," followed by what was presented as an extended quotation: "I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. But they're manufactured tremendous  if you're into this  tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint  fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it's in China, Germany, it's going into the air. It's our air, their air, everything  right?"   The quotation included in the Occupy Democrats meme was a highly, though not perfectly, accurate presentation of real remarks made by Trump during a Dec. 21 speech at a conference held by the right-leaning youth organization Turning Point USA.  Appearing before a highly partisan, strongly supportive audience, Trump riffed on various familiar topics, attacking and ridiculing Democrats and boosting his own administration's record, often using hyperbolic language and eliciting laughter and cheers from the crowd. At times, the remarks appeared more like a stand-up comedy routine than an official speech.  Around 30 minutes in, Trump ridiculed the Green New Deal, riffed on the subject of wind power, and attacked wind turbines. The following is a transcript of the most relevant section from his speech, which can also be watched in the official White House video below. ...We'll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I've studied it [sic] better than anybody I know. It's [sic] very expensive. They're made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none. But they're manufactured -- tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So [a] tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything -- you talk about the "carbon footprint" -- fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it's in China, Germany, it's going into the air. It's our air, their air, everything, right?  So they make these things, and then they put them up, and if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They're noisy, they kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go, take a look, a bird graveyard? Go under a windmill some day. You'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life ...  The remarks included in the meme are shown in boldface above. Occupy Democrats did not misquote Trump and quoted word-for-word from his actual remarks, though the creators of the meme made slightly different punctuation choices to those we made. They also left out a short section where Trump explained his purported knowledge of windmills: "I've studied it [sic] better than anybody I know. It's [sic] very expensive. They're made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none." That gap should have been reflected in the quotation with the use of an ellipsis, but the omission did not distort the meaning or sense of what Trump said, and we therefore issue a rating of "Correct Attribution." ellipsis Although his remarks were somewhat garbled at times, Trump appeared to have been making the point that the construction of wind turbines causes carbon emissions ("tremendous fumes"). For what it's worth, it's true that building and maintaining wind turbines does leave a carbon footprint, but analyses have shown that the overall negative environmental impact of wind power is far outstripped by that of the fossil fuel energy sources that wind power is intended to replace.  analyses National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization."
 Accessed 26 December 2019. Schipani, Vanessa. "Wind Energy's Carbon Footprint."
 FactCheck.org. 14 March 2018. In June 2019, the Chicago investment firm Chicago BDT Capital Partners acquired a majority stake in the Texas-based restaurant chain Whataburger. The news was unsettling to some Texans who feared that their beloved burger joint would undergo some unwanted changes: acquired Ok, I say we all chip in and buy Whataburger back. Make honey butter chicken biscuits available all day, add kolaches to the menu and change nothing else. Especially not the ketchup. https://t.co/HadutHXJ9l https://t.co/HadutHXJ9l  JJ Watt (@JJWatt) June 14, 2019 June 14, 2019  Shortly after this news broke, an image purportedly showing a screenshot of a message posted to Whataburger's Twitter account -- in which the restaurant chain announced that they were changing their colors from orange and white to blue, black, and white in honor of Chicago's baseball teams -- began to circulate on social media: circulate social media   This was not a genuine tweet from Whataburger: It does not appear anywhere on the company's Twitter timeline, and we were unable to locate any archived versions of this supposed message. timeline Furthermore, the Whataburger Twitter account has responded to several curious social media users to inform them that the above-displayed image is fake. In other words, Whataburger is not changing their signature orange color to blue, black, and white in honor of the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox:   The social media post announcing that Whataburger was changing their colors was fake, but the following social media post from Whataburger assuring fans that they will continue to make Texas proud is real: social media post   Fernandez, Manny.  "Whataburger Got Sold to Chicago. Texas Is Flipping Out."
  The New York Times.  20 June 2019. 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 Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company: Phantom Works researched BWB   Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747s 211 feet,and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come. There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbuss $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380s 570 mph (912 km/h)The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy. This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business. articles A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006: tackled From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand. Glen, from Warrington, Pennsylvania brings up the same subject: Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it? No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. As part of the research, Phantom Works has built a scale model for wind-tunnel testing of the concept's low-speed flying characteristics. There also are plans to flight-test the scale model next year. In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design. image Baseler, Randy.  "Air Mail."
  Randy's Journal.  1 November 2006. Ostrower, Jon.  "World Gets First Peek at Boeing '797.'"
  CNN Money.  20 June 2017. Boeing.  "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept."
 27 October 2006. NewTechSpy.  "Boeing to Take on Airbus with (1,000 Seat) Giant 797 Blended Wing Plane."
  24 April 2006.