Big Oil
Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. 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.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008.
Ohio Senate President Keith Faber and other members of the GOP majority caucus stood in front of placards that said job creation and workforce development to talk with reporters about their priorities for the 130th General Assembly. Faber said the first bills introduced by Senate Republicans would include legislation focused on job training and placement to maintain the strength of the state economy. Ohio companies, he said, export more goods and services globally than 41 other states. That aroused the curiosity of PolitiFact Ohio. We wanted to know more, partly because the ranking means Ohio would trail less populous states. The Ohio Department of Development said in its latest report on state exports that Ohio was the 9th largest exporting state, confirming what he said. The Development Department is an affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau. With the U.S. Commerce Department, it is the official source for U.S. export and import statistics. We followed our curiosity further into its data from 2011, the most recent available: In global exports, Ohio trails Texas, California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana and Michigan. The state's largest export market is Canada, followed by Mexico, China, France and Brazil. The state's largest merchandise export category is transportation equipment. And export-supported jobs linked to manufacturing account for an estimated 7.1 percent of Ohio's total private-sector employment. Faber's statement rates True on the Truth-O-Meter. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. In July 2022, a user of Snopes' Facebook tip group asked us if a viral photograph of a sign reading "The inventor of autocorrect has died the funnel will be held tomato" was real or if it had been digitally edited.  Snopes' Facebook tip group  The skepticism surrounding this sign is certainly understandable. After all, we've covered dozens of other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage on signs.  covered dozens other photos featuring digitally altered verbiage signs This picture shows a sign in the parking lot of a National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida. Here's a screenshot from Google Streeview that shows the sign at a similar angle.  National Vacuum store in Gainesville, Florida  This store regularly uses its sign to display humorous messages. Using Google Street View, we were able to find several other sign displays outside this store stretching back to 2007. While we didn't find an image of the "founder of autocorrect" sign, we did find a number of similar idioms, such as "It's Spring! We're so excited we wet our plants," "talk is cheap until you hire a lawyer," and "I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."  We reached out to National Vacuum for comment and they confirmed that the message "the inventor of autocorrect has died. The funnel will be held tomato" had previously been displayed on their sign. A spokesperson said: "Yes, we have used this sign message in the past." Who invented autocorrect? Did they die? Will the funnel be held tomato?  The history of autocorrect can be traced back to the early 1990s, when Microsoft implemented a new feature in their word processing program, Word 6.0. There have been numerous improvements and iterations of this idea since then, so there isn't really a single "inventor" of the feature. According to Wired, the "closest thing [autocorrect] has to an individual creator" would be Dean Hachamovitch, who worked on the feature for Microsoft in 1993. According to Wired When Hachamovitch first joined Microsoft, he was given a job on the Word team. This was back in the early '90s. Word processing was at a crossroads, split into factions. On one side were the people who wanted adornments and frillsimproved desktop publishing, color separation, and the like. On the other side was the functionality gang, with whom Hachamovitch threw in his lot. This camp simply wanted to help people get out of their own way. As Hachamovitch saw it, the main thing that people do on a word processor is typeand typing, in his estimation, is a matter of a little bit of creativity and a whole lot of scutwork. He could improve the typing experience by delivering us from scut. His aim was to make our typing sleek and invisible, smooth as speaking from a teleprompter. Ken Kocienda also deserves partial credit for inventing autocorrect, as he developed the feature for the original iPhone.  developed the feature for the original iPhone As of this writing, Hachamovitch and Kocienda are both still with us. Engber, Daniel. Who Made That Autocorrect? The New York Times, 6 June 2014. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/magazine/who-made-that-autocorrect.html. Lewis-Kraus, Gideon. The Fasinatng Fascinating History of Autocorrect. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/2014/07/history-of-autocorrect/. Accessed 8 July 2022. Stern, Joanna. Autocorrect Explained: Why Your IPhone Adds Annoying Typos While Fixing Others. Wall Street Journal, 27 Apr. 2022. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/autocorrect-explained-why-your-iphone-adds-annoying-typos-while-fixing-others-11651051891. Update [July 12, 2022]: Status changed to "True" based on new information. Archaeologists excavating a well-known burial site believed to be the final resting place of Cleopatra discovered a number of mummies dating back an estimated 2,000 years, some of which had golden tongues placed within their mouths. Kathleen Martinez, of the University of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, reported that her team discovered 16 burial shafts at the Taposiris Magna Temple in western Alexandria. The find was shared in a Facebook post dated Jan. 29, 2021, and in a statement made by Egypts Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. Facebook post Jan. 29, 2021 statement Taposiris Magna is an ancient town located on Lake Mariut in Egypt with a temple whose name implies that it was a tomb of Osiris, the Egyptian god of fertility and the afterlife. This nearly 100-foot-tall landmark has been theorized to be the final resting place of Queen Cleopatra, the Greek famed for her beauty who reigned over Egypt 2,000 years ago. Cleopatra was the last ruler of Egypt before it was annexed to Rome in 30 B.C., according to Ancient History. Taposiris Magna final resting place Ancient History Archaeologists said that the number of mummies in a poor state of preservation found inside the shafts highlighted the characteristics of mummifications in the Greek and Roman eras. According to research published by the Spurlock Museum of World Cultures, mummification processes were much different when Egypt was considered a part of Greece and Rome. In many instances, the art of embalming rapidly declined and embalmers no longer could no longer afford to take the time to efficiently mummify a body. Often, bodies had already started to decay before the process had begun. X-rays of mummies from this time period show wrappings that cover incomplete bodies with missing parts replaced by bones, pottery, or palm fibers, wrote the institution. The emphasis for these later mummies was not on the treatment of the body but on the external additions. Within the bandages were wrapped masks, breastplates, and foot coverings made of cartonnage.  Among the items discovered were a funeral mask made for a woman. Egypt Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities  And these external adornments were exactly what Martinez and her team discovered at Taposiris Magna. Some mummies were wrapped in gilded cartonnage, the material that is used to wrap a mummy, while amulets of tongue-shaped golden foil were placed inside the mouths of others in what is believed to have been part of a ritual to enable speaking in the afterworld. To be clear, they were not actual tongues covered in gold.  Marble statues found at the temple were indicative of Roman and Greek art. Egypt Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities  Of particular interest were two of the newly discovered mummies, one of which was adorned with decorations in the likeness of Osiris, the god of the afterlife, and the other of which wore what is known as the Atef crown. Also symbolic of Osiris, this feathered white crown was decorated with horns and a cobra snake on the forehead. The chest of this mummy also exhibited a gilded decoration in the form of a necklace with the head of a falcon, a symbol of the god Horus. Other significant archaeological treasures were discovered, according to Dr. Khaled Abu Al-Hamd, director general of Alexandria Antiquities, including a funeral mask designed for a woman. Also found were eight golden flakes representing a golden wreath, and eight masks of marble that also dated to the Greek and Roman areas. Excavations over the last decade have revealed important finds that have helped archaeologists piece together the history of the Temple of Tabosiris Magna. These include coins bearing the name and image of Cleopatra VII and other pieces of archaeological significance that prove the temple was built by King Ptolemy, the younger brother of Cleopatra who was ceremonially married to her so she could ascertain the throne. As the race between Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican challenger Scott Brown heats up, the attacks are growing more intense. In a recent radio ad, Shaheen accused Brown of being too friendly with Wall Street when serving as a senator from neighboring Massachusetts from 2010 to 2012. Heres the 60-second ads narration: Wonder why Scott Brown lost re-election in Massachusetts? Well, he was working for Wall Street, not the people. Scott Brown blocked a major financial reform bill until he could water it down and save Wall Street $19 billion. Scott Brown really delivered for Wall Street, said the Boston Globe. Even after the bill passed, news reports show Brown was secretly serving the interests of Wall Street, working behind the scenes to help the big banks, not consumers. Wall Street thanked Scott Brown by giving him more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million. Now, Scott Brown wants New Hampshire to send him to Washington. Wall Streets once again spending millions to help. Scott Brown says he really cares about New Hampshire. Come on, dont be fooled. No matter where he lives, Scott Brown will always put Wall Street first. And thats good for Scott Brown, but not New Hampshire. Thats a lot to chew on. PolitiFact New Hampshire already checked a claim by a pro-Shaheen group that Browns actions had saved big banks $19 billion in taxes, rating itMostly False. But what about the ads claim that Wall Street gave him more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million? We decided to take a closer look. The Shaheen campaign pointed us to calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics, whoseopensecrets.orgwebsite tracks a wide variety of campaign-finance data. Its a trusted source that weve used many times in the past. The Shaheen campaigns $5.3 million figure refers to how much Brown received in the 2012 campaign cycle -- when he lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren -- from donors categorized as being part of the finance, insurance and real estate sector. Theirdollar figure is correct-- as is Browns No. 1 ranking among all Senate candidates for donations from that sector -- but Shaheens ad stretches a bit when it calls this Wall Street. Most finance firms have a reasonable claim on being part of Wall Street, but a lot of the insurance and real-estate sectors fall outside that category. Also, not everyone working at these firms is a financial mogul, but their individual donations still count towards the total. So we decided to drill down a little deeper. We found a few sub-categories of finance/insurance/real estate that are a closer fit to Wall Street. They include: Securities and investment: Brown ranked first among Senate candidates in the 2012 campaign cycle with$2,682,872. Private equity and investment firms: Brown ranked first with$556,092in donations. Hedge funds: Brown ranked first with$306,800in donations. Venture capital: Brown ranked first with$262,081in donations. This provides support for the notion that Brown ranked No. 1 in these types of donations. But he ranked a little lower in two other categories: Finance and credit companies: Brown ranked ninth with$54,450in donations. Commercial banks: Brown ranked third with$297,539in donations. Meanwhile, Browns total haul from these six categories was about $4.2 million, or about one-fifth lower than what the ad said. This is not the first time that Shaheens campaign has used somewhat loose language in describing Browns donors. When a previous Shaheen ad claimed that Big Oil gave Scott Brown $454,260, we rated that claimHalf True, noting that only about 11.5 percent of Browns haul came from companies and individuals affiliated with the biggest multinational companies -- what most viewers would consider Big Oil. When we contacted Browns staff, spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said, Scott Browns fundraising is no different than Jeanne Shaheens in that they both accept contributions from the financial services industry. The only difference is that Jeanne Shaheen is hypocritically attacking him for it. However, in the 2012 election cycle -- when Brown was receiving $5.3 million from the finance/insurance/real estate sector -- Shaheen accepted just $64,139 from the same sector, ranking 65th among all Senate candidates. In the current cycle, she has accepted $565,935 from the finance/insurance/real estate sector, ranking her 21st among Senate candidates. Our ruling Shaheens ad said that in 2012, Wall Street gave Scott Brown more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million. If you put together six categories that might reasonably be considered Wall Street, Brown received about $4.2 million in all, and he finished first among Senate candidates in four of those six categories. However, the total amount is short of the $5.3 million claimed in the ad. The statement is generally accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. As a presidential candidate, one of Donald Trump's main campaign promises was to improve the treatment of United States military veterans and initiate major reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). reforms However, the president faced criticism during 2018 budget talks amidst reports that he was proposing significant cuts to benefits for disabled veterans. On 17 January 2018, a meme appeared on social media that specified a facet of that criticism: meme   As is usually the case with memes and macros, this was not an entirely accurate summation of the political situation. President Trump did propose cutting a particular benefit for some disabled veterans in his March 2017 federal budget proposal; however, his administration backed away from the plan after an outcry from veterans' groups and abandoned the provisions that would have produced those cuts. The Facebook meme appeared to have originated in an analysis of President Trump's budget plan contained in journalist David Cay Johnston's book It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America. On page 225, Johnston wrote that: journalist book page 225 The biggest cut Trump proposed [in his 2018 budget] was ending a benefit for disabled veterans once they reach the minimum age for Social Security benefits. These veterans would see their income plunge from almost $35,000 annually to less than $13,000 if the Trump plan becomes law.  The benefit is called "individual unemployability" (IU) and is paid out (as part of the Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation program) to military veterans who are unable to find work because they have a relatively high level of disability sustained during service in the armed forces,  according to the VA: VA Individual Unemployability ... allows VA to pay certain Veterans disability compensation at the 100% rate, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at the total level. In order to qualify for IU, a veteran must be assessed as being at least 60 percent disabled due to a service-connected disability or disabilities. As Johnston correctly wrote, Donald Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal ended individual unemployability for disabled veterans once they became eligible to receive Social Security benefits. However, Johnston did not mention that, under President Trump's proposal, disabled veterans who received Social Security benefits would continue to be paid disability benefits by the VA, albeit at their originally-assessed disability rate (rather than at a 100 percent rate), and anyone not eligible for Social Security would continue to receive IU. The 2018 budget proposal outlined the proposed changes: outlined Veterans eligible for Social Security retirement benefits would have their IU terminated upon reaching the minimum retirement age for Social Security purposes, or upon enactment of the proposal if the Veteran is already in receipt of Social Security retirement benefits. These Veterans would continue to receive VA disability benefits based on their original disability rating, at the scheduler evaluation level. IU benefits would not be terminated for Veterans who are ineligible for Social Security retirement benefits, thus allowing them to continue to receive IU past minimum retirement age. The Trump administration estimated that the proposed cuts would save $3.2 billion in 2018 and $40.8 billion over 10 years and had proposed using those savings to help fund a plan to expand and make permanent the Obama administration's Veterans Choice Program, which seeks to improve the availability of care for veterans in their own communities.  Veterans Choice Program Veterans organizations strongly criticized the IU proposal in early 2017, with veterans service organization AMVETS warning that it was "deeply concerned" by the cuts, which they said would affect "perhaps the most vulnerable segment of the veterans population": AMVETS warning The argument for this cut is that these senior citizens would be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits at age 65. That argument is flawed because these veterans have largely been disabled, out of the work force and not paying into Social Security for many years before reaching 65. Many have been severely disabled as a result of their military service and unable to work since the day of their discharge. AMVETS estimated that Trump's proposal would affect 225,000 military veterans aged over 65 and would decrease by a full $1,200 a month the disability benefit paid to an unmarried veteran with a 90 percent disabled rating.  The payments that veterans receive under IU depends upon their disability rating and family circumstances, as outlined by the VA. For example, a veteran with a 60 percent disability rating who lives alone would theoretically receive $1,083.52 in disability benefits each month. However, under individual unemployability, veterans are treated as if they had a disability rating of 100 percent, meaning they would receive $2,973.86 each month.  For veterans eligible to receive Social Security, Trump's plan would have pruned their monthly disability benefit back to the 60 percent rate, a highly significant cut of $1,890.34, or 63.6 percent. Over the course of a year, that would have brought their disability benefits down from $35,686.32 to $13,002.24, roughly the amounts mentioned by David Cay Johnston in his book and in the Facebook meme. VA Such veterans would be in receipt of Social Security benefits as well, but it's easy to see the significant financial effects the plan would have had on an aging veteran who was unable to work and who lived alone. By comparison, a retirement-aged veteran with a 90 percent disability rating and a dependent spouse, a child, and two parents would have seen annual disability benefits cut from $42,326.64 to $27,356.16, a decrease of 35.4 percent. In June 2017, VA Secretary David Shulkin publicly stepped back from the proposed IU cut, telling the Senate Veterans' Affair Committee that: telling As I began to listen to veterans and their concerns and VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] in particular, it became clear that this would be hurting some veterans, and that this would be a take-away from veterans that can't afford to have those benefits taken away. And I'm really concerned about that...I am not going to support policies that hurt veterans. The following October, Shulkin wrote to veterans service organizations to confirm that the VA no longer supported ending IU for disabled veterans who are eligible to receive Social Security. wrote Johnston's analysis, and the Facebook meme posted by Stacey Sharp, are both true in a narrow sense. The amounts they mentioned were accurate but were based on only one of many possible scenarios for disabled veterans.  The latter, published in January 2018, left out that the proposal had been abandoned by then. Merica, Dan.  "Trump Signs VA Reform Bill, Making Good on a Campaign Promise."
   CNN.  23 June 2017. Johnston, David Cay.  It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America.
  Simon & Schuster, 2018.  ISBN 1-501-17416-9  (p. 225).

 Hoellwarth, John.  "AMVETS Deeply Concerned by President's Proposed Cuts to Veteran Benefits."
  American Veterans. 24 May 2017. Wentling, Nikki.  "VA Secretary Promises in Writing Not to Cut Benefit Program for Disabled Vets."
  Stars and Stripes.  13 October 2017. In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. Claim:  Account describes President Obama's August 2009 town hall meeting in Montana.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Bill and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on. On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date. On about Tuesday Bill found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Bill knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$ During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession.  $$$$$     Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th,  they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday. Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm..... 900 tickets just DISAPPEARED. This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana  has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think... with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for. On Friday Bill and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.   The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them... professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs.  (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area) Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.  So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest. If you are wondering about the press.... Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds.  We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media... they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head. It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes..... the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors... EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!  I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Bill and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!   KathyBozeman, Montana Origins:  On Friday, 14 August 2009, President Obama held a town hall meeting in Bozeman, Montana, to discuss his proposed health care reforms. That town hall meeting was one of three that week, the other two being held in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Aug. 11), and Grand Junction, Colorado (Aug. 15). At this time, the author of the e-mailed account purporting to have been written by someone who attended the town hall meeting in Bozeman is unknown. Some versions are signed "Kathy" and mention that the writer's husband's name is Bill, but others are signed "Sue" and identify the husband as Joe. Some additionally describe the husband as a former Navy pilot and Delta Airlines captain. Many are prefaced by claims that the author is a friend who lives in Montana, or that she is the wife of a cousin.  Puzzlingly, though we combed through the hundreds of copies of this piece we received, none of those e-mail forwards provided a surname for Kathy/Bill or Sue/Joe (although a concatenation of the name and location listed at the end has misled some to believe the writer is named Kathy Bozeman). In just about every other case we've tackled where e-mailed eyewitness accounts have gone viral, at least a handful of the earliest forwards provided clues to the surname of the sender, if not the sender's actual name.  Questions of authorship aside, the account asserts four primary criticisms: That thousands of dollars worth of lobster was shipped in for the President, that the majority of tickets for the event were not distributed to the town's citizens but instead were used to pack the hall with Obama supporters, that the media did not cover the protests taking place outside the meeting, and that there was a dust-up between two groups of protesters, resulting in the arrest of one person. Let's start with the lobsters. The whole of that claim arises from the e-mail, which states: "This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama."  We looked at numerous news accounts about the event (far, far more than are listed in the Sources section at the end of this article) and failed to find any mention of lobsters (shipped in or otherwise) in any of them, or of staffers and/or town hall attendees chowing down on lobster dinners.  Regarding the distribution of tickets for the event, most press accounts seem to agree there were 1,300 ticket-holders in attendance at the Bozeman town hall meeting held in a hangar at the airport. Many news articles mention 700 tickets having been handed out (a limit of two to a family) at Bozeman's city hall, and some mention an additional 150 having been distributed on the same basis at the city hall in the nearby small town of Belgrade.  According to the Big Sky Weekly, for example: "The vast majority of tickets were general admission (split roughly 80/20 between Bozeman and Belgrade respectively, based on their populations). Tickets were limited to two per person and were distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at Bozeman City Hall and Belgrade City Hall. The remaining tickets were distributed by the White House to elected officials and community leaders."  If the reported attendance figures are accurate, they would suggest that about 450 tickets were given out through means other than first-come, first-served public distribution, more than the "few" mentioned in other press accounts (e.g., "A few tickets were distributed by the White House to elected officials, community leaders and local supporters" [Associated Press] and "the state's two Democratic U.S. senators each ... said they had a 'handful' of tickets to hand out to friends and supporters" [Billings Gazette]), but less than the "majority" claimed in the e-mail.  (While the e-mail asserts 1,500 tickets were printed, press accounts agree there were 1,300 ticket-holding attendees. It's worth noting that organizers of events for which no admission fees are charged often print extra tickets to allow for factors such as spoilage, changes in venue capacity, no-shows, etc.). Away from the hangar that housed the meeting, rallies hosted by various groups were held. Some of these protests were well organized, with supporters having been bused in and armed with professionally-rendered signs, and others weren't. They were not ignored by the press, though (e.g., a Billings Gazette article covered the protests, as did television station KULR in the video linked below), albeit the focus of the journalists in attendance that day was upon the questions being put to the President in the meeting and how he was handling them rather than whatever those not actually part of the town hall meeting were getting up to in a nearby field: article  As to how the protesters behaved, various groups shook signs and shouted at one another. There were no reports of violence, although police did arrest one man for disorderly conduct. The unnamed man was released later that afternoon. Regarding the e-mail's suggestion that law enforcement was ineffective in controlling the protesters ("Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd"), at the end of the video linked to above, KULR reporter Nick Lough (who was on the scene during the demonstrations) says: "Bozeman police, the Gallatin County Sheriff's Department, and the Montana Highway Patrol were all within a few yards of the protesters just to make sure nothing grew too out of control." Barbara "controlled response" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 August 2009    Dennison, Mike.  "Crowd Gathers Early for Obama Montana Visit."   Billings Gazette.  14 August 2009.    Johnson, Charles.  "Demonstrators Have Field Day Near Airport."   Billings Gazette.  14 August 2009.    Lough, Nick.  "Demonstrators Outside Obama Town Hall."   KULR-TV [Billings, MT].  14 August 2009.    Mayrer, Jessica.  "Civil Discourse."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  15 August 2009.    Person, Daniel.  "Obama to Talk Health Care at Airport Friday."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  12 August 2009.    Schontzler, Gail.  "Its Showtime."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  14 August 2009.    Sidoti, Liz.  "Civil Exchanges at Obama's Health Care Forum."   The Star-Ledger.  15 August 2009  (p. A3).    Associated Press.  "Good Manners in Obama's Montana Audience."   14 August 2009. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 Claim: Edible Arrangements funds the terrorist organization Hamas. UNDETERMINED Example:   [Collected via Facebook, July 2014] A friend posted an "article" about Edible Arrangements supporting Hamas: "After you see what Edible Arrangments did for Hamas, you'll never buy from them AGAIN."  Being suspicious, I did a search and found a number of articles, all from late 2012, and all from questionable "news" sources.   Origins:  Edible Arrangements International is a U.S.-based business that specializes in selling "fruit bouquets," fruit baskets designed like floral arrangements.  As of 2014, the company was a 1,200-store chain with outlets in 14 countries, including the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Italy, Turkey, Hong Kong, Oman, India and China. Since at least as far back as 2012, rumors have circulated claiming that brothers Tariq and Kamran Farid, who founded the company, are "devout Pakistani Muslims" who have, through their Tariq Farid Foundation, donated money to organizations linked with Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist movement engaged in armed resistance and terrorism against Israel: rumors Tariq Farid Foundation Hamas Tariq Farid is the CEO of Edible Arrangements, which he started with his brother, Kamran Farid. Not only are they devout Pakistani Muslims, but they are major donors and fundraisers for American mosques, Islamic schools, and similar enterprises in Pakistan. Recent tax returns of their Farid Foundation, to which they and Edible Arrangements are major contributors, show that their foundation gives tens of thousands of dollars to extremist Islamic schools and mosques in America and to Islamic Relief, the HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood "charity" which sends tens of millions of dollars to finance jihad around the world. The Anti-Defamation League (whose stated mission is to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike") said of such rumors back in 2012 that: Anti-Defamation League We have received several such inquiries regarding recent allegations by Debbie Schlussel in an article critical of the owners of Edible Arrangements, which sells fruit baskets and the like. Schlussel claims that the owners of Edible Arrangements are funding Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas, through their Farid Foundation. In our judgment, Schlussel's allegations lack context and nuance and she does not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she references, we believe it is an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements is funding Hamas. The ADL disclaimed these rumors again in August 2014: disclaimed A widely circulated rumor suggests that the owners of Edible Arrangements, a company that sells fruit baskets through a series of privately owned franchises across the country, are funding Hamas through a charitable foundation they support. Several ideologically motivated online sites are urging consumers to boycott the company due to their ties to terrorism." In fact, there is absolutely no truth to these unfounded assertions. While the Farid Foundation has provided funding to various organization in the U.S. and abroad, there is no evidence to suggest that any of those funds have been used to support terrorism.  Moreover, the company has clearly and unequivocally denounced terrorism, including those forms of terror used by Hamas. It should also be noted that the company's franchise owners come from a variety of religious backgrounds; some are Jewish, including the companys current president. We do note that in June 2014 Islamic Relief WorldWide (IRW) was banned from operating in Israel due to that country's belief that IRW "funnels cash to Hamas": Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon [has] signed a decree banning Islamic Relief Worldwide from operating in Israel. Israel believes IRW, which markets itself as a charitable agency that solicits donations from all over the world, funnels cash to Hamas. Yaalons ban was decided upon after the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), the coordinator for government activities in the territories, and legal authorities provided incriminating information against IRW.  The organization has representatives worldwide, including Australia, the United States, and Britain, where it is headquartered. Some of their local branches in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are run by Hamas operatives.  Ya'alon's decree makes it illegal for IRW to function anywhere in Israel, Judea, and Samaria. It will also be forbidden from transferring funds to any destination in Judea and Samaria.  "[The IRW] is another source of funds for Hamas, and we have no intention of allowing it to operate and assist terrorist activity against Israel," Ya'alon said. "This is another in a series of steps that we are taking against Hamas in Judea and Samaria and the pressure we are applying, the goal of which is to harm the organizations leadership and rank-and-file as well as its civilian infrastructure. These serve as the foundation from which Hamas operates among the local population." In March 2014, Blue MauMau reported on a sexual and religious harassment lawsuit against Edible Arrangements and founder Tariq Farid which referenced charitable organizations that the Farids allegedly support: reported Farid and his brother, Kamran Farid (Edible Arrangements' Chief Operating Officer), at all relevant times hereto have been the two trustees of a foundation called the Farid Foundation, operated out of the same location as Edible Arrangements. Farid Foundation makes significant contributions to Islamic causes and organizations,  including the Farid Foundation Pakistan; the Salma K. Farid Academy; Islamic Circle of North America Relief; the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut; the Inner-City Muslim Action Network; the Wallingford Islamic Center; Masjid AI-Islam; and the Islamic Association of Southern Connecticut. The funding for these donations is derived in large part from donations by Farid and his brother, and by Edible Arrangements and its affiliated entities. One of those organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) supposedly has financial ties to Hamas, but the evidence presented for that claim only references web links from the ICNA web site to Hamas and similar groups, not any direct financial ties: ICNA evidence Open support for terrorist causes was available on the websites of regional ICNA branches, even after 9/11. As late as November 2002, the ICNA Southeast Zone website linked to the websites of Hamas, Hizballah, and terrorist organizations fighting in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani-Indian disputed region of Kashmir. Among its short list of recommended Islamic charities was the Islamic Society in Gaza, which openly touted its connections to Hamas. The day after the Blue MauMau article was published, Tariq Farid's legal representatives issued a letter challenging the truthfulness of its implications, demanding its retraction, and asserting, among other things, that Farid's foundation only donation to ICNA was made "to a special fund of the ICNA called 'ICNA Relief USA', an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing: letter This letter addresses a recent article regarding my clients, Tariq Farid and the Farid Foundation, that was written by Paul Steinberg under the pseudonym "Corbin Williston," and published on your website, Blue MauMau. The article is false and defamatory of Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation, and we demand an inunediate and complete retraction. We also demand that the publication be immediately removed from all websites under your control.  The article has been deliberately written to falsely accuse Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation of supporting the illegal acts of alleged terrorist organizations and the activities of alleged war criminals. Moreover, the article is written so that a reasonable reader would believe  that Edible Arrangements, the well-known business of which Mr. Farid is founder and CEO, also supports these alleged acts of terrorism. These statements, and the entire message of the article, are patently and outrageously false. Indeed, the author and publisher of these falsehoods could only have acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. The article asserts that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports terrorist activities overseas through the Farid Foundation's donations to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In fact, the Farid Foundation's only contribution was to a special fund of the ICNA called "ICNA Relief USA", an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing. When a rumormonger made similar false accusations against the Farid Foundation some time ago, the Anti-Defamation League responded that such "allegations lack[ed] context and nuance and [the accuser] [did] not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she referenc[ed], we believe it [was] an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements [funded] Hamas." Most egregious and defamatory is the articles clear implication that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports the goals of an alleged terrorist (Ashrafuzzaman Khan) or overseas terrorist groups. There is not a shred of objective fact, cited or existing, to support this false assertion. In addition, the article is in part based on false allegations contained in a complaint of an ex-employee of Edible Arrangements. Mr. Farid and Edible Arrangements have refuted those allegations in their answer and will obtain dismissal of all claims in the litigation. Blue MauMau's original article has not been retracted, and its author published a follow-up the next day stating (in part): follow-up A few observations regarding the Edible Arrangements statement: The franchise does not dispute that the head of ICNA was recently convicted of war crimes in Bangladesh. The franchise says that Edible Arrangements actually gave money to "a special fund" of ICNA. In other words, although ICNA may have been run by a man convicted of torture and murder of 18 people, he also ran "a special fund" which "helps women with temporary housing." Members of the public may find this a distinction without a difference, and they may also find it relevant that Edible Arrangements does not see any problem with ICNA's history of behavior, nor does it see any problem with the head of ICNA being a party to torture. My guess is that the people who were tortured and murdered might disagree with Tariq Farid. The franchise says that a "reasonable reader" may believe that Edible Arrangements and Tariq Farid "support these alleged acts of terrorism."  Well, yes. That is a "reasonable" reading of the uncontroverted facts laid out in the BlueMauMau article. Whatever the truth of those issues regarding ICNA may be, the evidence for a direct financial link between ICNA and Hamas (and thus between Edible Arrangements and Hamas) still appears rather tenuous. Last updated:  2 August 2014    O'Connor, Clare.  "How Edible Arrangements Sold $500 Million of Fruit Bouquets in 2013."   Forbes.  8 April 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Suit Renews Questions of Terrorist Support."   Blue MauMau.  30 March 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Denies Funding Terrorists."   Blue MauMau.  31 March 2014.     The Jerusalem Post.  "Israel Bans Islamic Relief Worldwide from West Bank Due to Hamas Ties."   19 June 2014.