Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People
Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007.
Although nearly everyone who still writes checks uses the sequentially numbered forms torn from books of blanks ordered from a printing company, there is no requirement that a bank customer must use such forms.  Indeed, that fact has given rise to a number of tales about checks written on surfaces other than paper: surfaces other than paper A check doesn't necessarily have to be written on paper. There are legends, probably apocryphal, of checks written on the backs of shirts (by tax protesters) and on watermelon rinds (by goodness knows whom -- maybe madcap farmers), even on skin. If they were written in the right format, they could be cashed. [A check] can be written on anything. As long as it has the elements, the surface doesn't make a difference. A check is an order to pay someone, that's all it is.	  "It has to contain certain features, and it can be written on anything," says Brian Black, managing director of operations and technology for the Bank Administration Institute. "As long as it has the elements, the surface doesn't make a difference. A check is an order to pay someone, that's all it is." In that vein, the story of the check written on the side of a cow is so widespread that major banks reportedly make reference to it in pamphlets given out to new depositors as an example of some of the unusual things people have used as checks. Nonetheless, it's a completely fabricated tale, and it sprang straight from the adventures of one Albert Haddock, the fictitious and fanciful creation of British writer A.P. Herbert.   Herbert's book Uncommon Law was first published in 1935. Herbert himself was called to the English Bar but never practiced, choosing another career path instead. He was a regular contributor to Punch for more than fifty years and the author of eight novels. He became a member of Parliament in 1935 and fought successfully for the reform of many licensing, divorce, and obscenity laws. Okay, now you know a bit about the author.  As for his wondrous creation, Albert Haddock, here's a bit from the introduction to Uncommon Law:  Albert Haddock made his first public appearance in Punch about 1924. I have always understood that I invented him, but he has made some disturbing escapes into real life. The first of the first series of Misleading Cases shown by the BBC on television in 1967 was No. 32 "Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock" where Haddock, in payment of income tax, made out a cheque on a cow and led it to the office of the Collector of Taxes. Some weeks later I received a spacious cutting from an American newspaper (the Memphis Press-Scimitar) headed:  A CHECK CAN BE WRITTEN ON A COW The article made not the slightest reference to me, my work, or the BBC, but used as news all Haddock's arguments and opinions on unconventional cheques. Halfway through, it suddenly claimed the authority of the Chase Manhattan Bank for the particular case of the cow: 'In the 19th century an Englishman named Albert Haddock got mad at the local tax collector over his bill and conceived a most ingenious idea for getting even.' Then followed the whole story. 19th century indeed! Haddock wasn't a real person any more than Sherlock Holmes was. A.P. Herbert loved writing about the law, so he created Haddock as an ongoing character upon whom he could hang his fanciful stories. The BBC's Misleading Cases comedy series, based on the exploits of the fictional Albert Haddock, used this one of Herbert's tales for its premier episode ("The Negotiable Cow," originally aired 20 June 1967), and someone at the Memphis Press-Scimitar picked up on it, didn't get the joke, and presented it as something that really happened. Not content to leave well enough alone, the Press-Scimitar threw in the bit about the Chase Manhattan Bank to lend an extra bit of believability to the tale. Misleading Cases One wonders how many cattle have been led into the Chase Manhattan Bank over the years thanks to the Press-Scimitar's gullibility. (NOTE: A number of Internet sources cite the 1985 edition of Michael Liepner's Applying the Law as documentation of the claim that "In Canada during the 1930s, a farmer painted a cheque on the side of a cow and cashed it."  This citation is erroneous: the referenced book contains no such statement.) Herbert, A.P.  Uncommon Law.
  New York: International Polygonics, 1935.  ISBN 1-55882-107-4.

 Wansell, Geoffrey.  "Cash on the Hoof for A.P. Herbert."
  The [London] Times.  27 August 1990.

 CNN Money.  "Giant Cardboard Checks."
  22 March 2001. Scam:  Advertisers offer kits that enable home workers to make money posting links on the Internet. Example:   If you live in Canada or the US and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Google has now released a new 'Work From Home Program' that will allow Americans to work for the titan from the comfort of their own homes. To thousands of North Americans this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future working for one of the fastest growing companies in the world. In the middle of this recession this country and the world is going through, Google has been thriving and reporting profits consistently every quarter.  Completely innovating the Search Engine industry in the late 1990's, Google has had a history of development and innovation, and another one is about to come.  Google has now opened it's doors and will be hiring everyday people to work from the comfort of their own homes posting links. The way this works is Google will allow people to signup and receive a package which will contain all the step by step instructions to get setup from home. This will allow Google to hire talent in places like Canada that would otherwise be unreachable and compensate them based on results on a long term basis. What you need: A Computer, an Internet Connection and the desire to make a living working from home. No special skills are required other than knowing how to use a computer and navigate the internet.  Mary, a mother from Toronto, who worked with Google in the experimental parts of this program, is thriving, in the middle of an economic recession, working in the comfort of her own home with Google. From her website: 'I get paid about $25 USD for every link I post on Google and I get paid every week... I make around $5500 USD a month right now' Google has now officially released their new 'work from home' system out to the public. There will be thousand of spots available that are expected to go very soon in the next few days.  The way this works is very simple, Google says.  First you will need to apply for their work from home kits. Google has release a limited amount of kits, all distributed through local websites in your area throughout US and Canada, which will cost $2 of shipping and handling to the public.  Google says this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about working with them through this program.  Once you have ordered your kit (if you are one of the lucky few to get availability in your area) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start working from home for the online titan. This kit will show you all you need to know, Google says. You will be performing simple and straightforward tasks such as posting links. 'Anybody with basic computer skills will be able to perform these tasks' adding to that they say that 'We understand the psychology of working from home and we want to give our employees tasks that are simple and easy, and reward them generously in order to keep them motivated.' Is this worth quitting your job? If you're lucky enough to receive a kit, you might not even have to.  'We start off our work from home program only requiring 1-2 hours a day of work, earning a great income from the start. This way our work from home employees will see the benefit and start devoting more and more time each day and their salaries will increase accordingly' Google reports. Although they are going very fast since their release earlier today, thousands of positions are still available at the time of this writing.  To apply for a job working from home for Google here are the three steps: Step 1: Get the Google Work From Home Kit, only pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows Google to screen for serious people).  Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and set up a Google account. Then they will give you the website links to post. Start posting those links. Google tracks everything. Step 3: Google will send out your checks weekly. Or you can start to have them wire directly into your checking account. (Your first checks will be about $750 to $1,500 a week. Then it goes up from there. Depends on how many links you posted online.) Variations:  In December 2009 we began encountering a Yahoo version of the scam, which was the same as the Google scam discussed below, just with Yahoo's name inserted in place of Google's. Origins:  Those searching for employment opportunities that will allow them to work from home are all too often the very people who can least afford to be defrauded. Although many folks daydream about earning livable incomes from the comfort of their dens rather than having to make the trek to their offices each day, they do not as a general rule of thumb search for such job openings with the same fervor as do the elderly, the physically challenged, or parents committed to remaining at home with their preschool children. Members of those groups hunt for work-at-home opportunities because laboring in more traditional job settings is impossible for them. Because genuine offers of work of this nature are few and far between, with the need to secure a steady income becoming more of a pressing issue with each passing non-employed day, those folks are at far greater risk of being victimized by such schemes; their desperation leads them to be gulled by pie-in-the-sky promises and mollified by the wild backstories that go with them, while the financially better off  are more likely to remain convinced something is very wrong with the offer of mucho bucks in exchange for only a few hours'labor performed from home each week by persons possessed of no special training or skills. From 2009 onwards, a proliferation of seeming newspaper articles touting "Google Job Opportunities," "Google Money Master," "Easy Google Profit," "Google Cash Kit," "Google Fortune Kit," "Home Cash System," "Six Figure Program" and the like began popping up on the Internet. Such come-ons are typically emblazoned with "As seen on" taglines followed by an impressive array of logos, including those of ABC, AOL, CNN, MSNBC, and USA Today.Often these come-ons include what appear to be tearsheets from legitimate-looking publications, such as the New York Tribune and Los Angeles Tribune. As for the publications supposedly reporting these stories, while there was a New York Tribune long ago, in 1924 it merged with the New York Herald to form the New York Herald Tribune. (Even that newspaper is no longer around; it went out of business in 1967.) As for the ostensible Los Angeles Tribune, that paper is wholly fictional; it existed only in the television show Lou Grant. Web pages purporting to be personal reports of riches reaped through these programs have also popped up, such as the now defunctBryansMoneyBlog.com. They too were the same sort of come-on. While the promise of vast riches to be gained through working from home is held out to those seeking an answer to their financial problems, that promise is but the worm used to entice the fish into biting down on the hook. Those who sign up for such kits will not soon find themselves on Easy Street; instead, they will find their bank accounts tapped to the tune of approximately $80 a month. While prospective job seekers are told they need to pay a $2 charge for kits that supposedly contain the step-by-step instructions on how to begin working from home (often explained as Google's way of sifting the serious from non-serious candidates), a closer examination of the Terms and Conditions associated with the programs applicants are signing up for reveals they are instead authorizing monthly charges either to their bank accounts or credit cards, usually to the tune of about $80 a month. Those who attempt to cancel these charges find the task a difficult one, in that only rarely does anyone at the phone number supplied for that purpose actually come onto that line. Those still not convinced they haven't just found the answer to their prayers are invited to closely examine the various web page come-ons. Usually, buried at the bottom of the page in fine print is a statement to the effect that "Google is in no way associated with this website." Barbara "web slight of hand" Mikkelson How to Avoid Falling Victim to 'Work From Home' Scams: Don't pay a company to hire you, not even if such payment is presented as your buying necessary training materials, obtaining required certification, or registering with databases of available workers. Remember, if the process involves your sending your "employers" money, it's probably a scam.  If you have questions about the legitimacy of a job listing, contact your Better Business Bureau, your state or local consumer agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.   Examine your credit card and bank account statements every month, keeping an eye peeled for unauthorized charges. Immediately challenge items you did not approve. Additional information:        Suspicious sites and what to look for   (Google)        How to steer clear of money scams   (Official Google blog)   Last updated:  15 December 2009    Sources:   Buck, Claudia.  "Employment Work-at-Home Deals Often Are Just Scams."   The Houston Chronicle.  30 March 2009  (p. B8).     Turner, Tracy.  "Scammers Tweeting Their Way to Easy Prey."   The Columbus Dispatch.  12 July 2009  (p. D1).     Weeks, Carly.  "As the Economy Tanks, Scams Thrive."   The Globe and Mail.  9 March 2009  (p. L1). On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes.  The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds  In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge On July 27, 2022, we reviewed a scam email that claimed to come from "McAfee Support," presumably the tech troubleshooting arm of the company that's best known for providing antivirus software. The message had an unofficial email address as its sender, and the body of the message read, "Device at risk, hurry up and update your license." The bottom of the email displayed the words, "Click here to remove yourself from our emails list." All of the links in the message, including the one for unsubscribing, led to the same web page. Clearly, this email did not really come from McAfee. We ran the link to the web page through two malicious website scanners. According to IPQualityScore, the URL was part of a phishing scam. Email Veritas' URL Checker also dubbed the link unsafe. IPQualityScore Email Veritas' URL Checker  official correspondence We strongly advise readers to never click links in suspicious emails and texts, as they can possibly lead to phishing. The same goes with phone numbers that appear in these kinds of messages, as they often will link you directly with scammers. phishing scammers The scammers' goal with sending these kinds of emails and texts is likely to compromise users' online accounts, personal and financial information, credit and debit card numbers, Social Security numbers, and, perhaps, other sensitive data. AgingCare.com published tips for users who accidentally click phishing links. According to the article, it's best to disconnect your device from the internet, back up your files, scan your device for malware, change your passwords, and set up fraud alerts. article malware We notified McAfee of the above-displayed phishing email and asked if the company had additional information regarding the scammers' motives. This story will be updated if we receive further details. McAfee EmailVeritas. URL Checker. https://www.emailveritas.com/url-checker. Fraud Prevention. IP Quality Score, https://www.ipqualityscore.com. Kerskie, Carrie. 5 Steps to Take After Clicking on a Phishing Link. AgingCare.com, 24 Sept. 2021, https://www.agingcare.com/articles/5-steps-to-take-after-clicking-on-a-phishing-link-178044.htm. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Phishing. Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/technology/phishing. You Get Fake Emails from Scammers Posing as McAfee. McAfee KB, https://www.mcafee.com/support/?articleId=TS103285&page=shell&shell=article-view. Eight years after Gov. Rick Perry proudly introduced his plan for the future of transportation in Texas, his campaign declared that vision null and void in a blog post during the Republican gubernatorial debate Thursday night.The Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, said the post, which was entered at 7:26 p.m.The TTC -- unveiled in January 2002 as an approximately $200 billion plan for 4,000 miles of toll roads, rail lines and utility lines criss-crossing Texas in bundles -- has become an issue in the GOP primary contest between Perry, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, a businesswoman from Wharton. Hutchison has released online ads alleging that the controversial initiative, which drew the wrath of Perry opponents and some allies, is alive and well. One of the most vocal critics of the corridor idea was the Texas Farm Bureau, because it would have required the state to acquire a considerable amount of farmland.We decided to investigate the health of the Trans-Texas Corridor.The Texas Department of Transportation pronounced the TTC dead, in concept and in name, in January 2009. But some remnants of the project are still on the books.For one, the Trans-Texas Corridor concept remains in the states Transportation Code and other official documents, which Hutchison says is evidence that the project endures. An attempt to remove those references failed during the 2009 legislative session with the death of a measure regulating the Texas Department of Transportation.As for the road projects that were envisioned under TTC, only two were still kicking after January 2009: the centerpiece, a tollway twin to the Interstate 35 corridor that would run from Dallas to San Antonio, and Interstate 69 between the Rio Grande Valley and Texarkana.But the I-35 twin was buried in October 2009 when a state environmental study of several years duration concluded with a no-build recommendation. The only vestige of that plan is the 49 northernmost miles of the Texas 130 tollway, which skirts the Austin areas eastern edge from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge, and another 40 miles south from there to Seguin that are under construction by a private consortium. However, that project was under way before Perry proposed the TTC.The I-69 project lives on and is currently in the planning stages.However, two years earlier, in 2007, the Legislature dealt a major blow to one of the main tenets of the TTC  for the state to issue long-term leases to private companies to build and operate toll roads  by placing a moratorium on new public-private toll road partnerships, with several exceptions. That moratorium in effect became permanent last year when the Legislature failed to extend the authority for such leases beyond Sept. 1, 2009.The roads in the corridor plan technically could be built without public-private partnerships, but the state doesnt have the money to do so. In any case, rural opposition to building any sort of twin roads to interstates was at the heart of the plans collapse.The I-69 initiative was one of the exceptions to the moratorium, but only a section of the approximately 600-mile road, the piece south of Refugio, can be a public-private partnership. And Chris Lippincott, a TxDOT spokesman, said that the decisions about exactly where the road will go and whether it will be tolled have not yet been made. The Texas Transportation Commission ordered that the road be laid down over existing highways, with free frontage roads alongside, except in areas where there is not an existing highway. This is much different from the original Perry concept of entire new road, rail and utility corridors.Texas still has a long-term transportation plan, but its not the TTC. In a January 2009 statement describing the changes being made to TTC, Amadeo Saenz, executive director of TxDOT, said that the new plan would be called Innovative Connectivity in Texas/Vision 2009 and that any projects that had existed under TTC, such as an I-35 twin, would be developed individually, if they happened at all.Summing up: We found that some language in the state Transportation Code and the much-altered highway I-69 project survive from Perrys original TTC vision. But its centerpiece paralleling I-35 is truly dead, and beyond that, the corridor plan retains only a faint statutory pulse. We rate Perrys statement as Mostly True. On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. That bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records, and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Presidents 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." H.R. 1233 press release A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress' attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), held that Cummings' bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed":  First of all, the above meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed"  that is, records that would ordinarily be accessible by the public have been restricted via court orders (see example below of such records):  In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration); are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records); or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Illinois state Senate records Selective Service registration college records Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above  with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years now  is federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included a number of provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed": Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Confirming that Federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form. Granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record. Authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic Federal and Presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the President. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems. Empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal. Codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review Presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings' bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overriden by the incumbent president or by court order: Amends the Presidential Records Act to require the Archivist of the United States, upon determining to make publicly available any presidential record not previously made available, to: (1) promptly provide written notice of such determination to the former President during whose term of office the record was created, to the incumbent President, and to the public; and (2) make such record available to the public within 60 days, except any record with respect to which the Archivist receives notification from a former or incumbent President of a claim of constitutionally-based privilege against disclosure. Prohibits the Archivist from making a record that is subject to such a claim publicly available unless: (1) the incumbent President withdraws a decision upholding the claim, or (2) the Archivist is otherwise directed to do so by a final court order that is not subject to appeal. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records: National Coalition for History For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administrations Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989 which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Executive Order 13233 Executive Order 13489 Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation there [was] nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former-president as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (HR 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013 creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, in essence codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. HR 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president, and grants to the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records, not to "keep Obamas records sealed." The National Coalition for History.  "HR 1233 'Presidential and Federal Records Act.'"
  Accessed 7 May 2019. Congress.gov.  "Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  Accessed 6 May 2019. National Archives.  "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Records Management."
  Accessed 7 May 2019. National Archives.  "National Archives Welcomes Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  1 December 2014. Do three Americans really have more wealth than half the country? Its a claim made by the runner-up for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president,Bernie Sanders. Campaigningon July 14, 2018 for U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Sanderstold a crowdin Eau Claire: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The U.S. senator, an independent from Vermont, previously made the claimon Facebookand repeated it three days after his Wisconsin appearance in a column inUSA Today. What we found is the wealth lead enjoyed by the three billionaires is even larger than what Sanders said. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc. A study Before we dig in, an important note about the nations wealth gap: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. The result is, even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth. To back Sanders claim, his campaign pointed us to a November 2017news articlein Forbes. The business magazine reported ona studypublished that month by the Institute for Policy Studies, which the article described as a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C. The study, which advocates for reducing wealth inequality, also gained news coverage fromUSA TodayandThe Guardian. And its authors wrote opinion articles about it forNewsweekand theLos Angeles Times. The numbers The study used data from Forbes 2017 ranking of the 400 richest Americans; and data for the rest of the country from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, which the study says has become widely accepted as the most comprehensive government dataset documenting household wealth. PolitiFact has alsoreliedonthisFed survey in our wealth fact checks. The first finding the study reported was this: The three wealthiest people in the United States now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 160 million people. Those individuals and their source of wealth are, according to the study: 1.Bill Gates, Microsoft: $89 billion 2. Jeff Bezos, Amazon: $81.5 billion 3.Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway: $78 billion Thats a total of $248.5 billion. The wealth of the bottom 160 million was $245 billion, the Institute for Policy Studies'Josh Hoxietold us. Thats a gap of $3.5 billion. Hoxie, a former a aide to Sanders, also pointed out that the wealth of the three billionaires has ballooned to $330 billion, according to Forbeslatest estimate. We dont have an updated estimate for the bottom 160 million American, as the Fed survey is done only once every three years. But Hoxie said its nearly impossible that the wealth of Americans at the bottom has grown nearly as much as that of the three billionaires. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, by the way, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study says. Other viewpoints More fact checks on wealth inequality Michael Moore, in 2011: Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.True. One Wisconsin Now, in 2013: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.True. Starbucks, in 2015: White people control almost 90 percent of the nation's wealth.True. The studys methodology is sound and its conclusion cited by Sanders is accurate, according toAbdur Chowdhury, an emeritus economics professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and economics professorEmmanuel Saez, director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California, Berkeley. As an aside, well note that Saez also said Sanders claim is somewhat meaningless. The meaningful thing to say, Saez told us, is the bottom half of the U.S. families owns essentially no wealth on net, because debts cancel out whatever small assets they may have, on average. Our rating Sanders says: The three wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. The wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett exceeded that of the 160 million at the bottom of the scale, according to a 2017 study. And more recent estimates indicate the wealth of the three has since grown dramatically, widening the gap even more. We rate Sanders statement True. Claim:  During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.'  Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly.  As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism.  Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record.  It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans.  Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless.   Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins:  This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he  said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've  got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates  corporate tax rates  on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.  I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things  fair distribution and robust economic growth  are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated:  17 August 2008    Sources:   Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008  (P. A1).    Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'"   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008. [Collected via e-mail, 2003] After anthropologist Susan McKinley came back home from an expedition in South America, she noticed a very strange rash on her left breast. Nobody knew what it was and she quickly dismissed it believing that the sores would leave in time. Upon her return she decided to see a doctor after she started developing intense pains. The doctor, not knowing the exact severity of the case, gave her antibiotics and special creams. As time elapsed the pain did not subside and her left breast became more inflamed and started to bleed. She decided to bandage her sores however as Susan's pain grew more intense she decided to seek help from a more certified doctor. Dr. Lynch could not diagnose the infection and told Susan to seek the aid of one of his colleagues who specialized in dermatology whom was sadly on vacation. She waited for two weeks and finally was able to reach the dermatologist. Sadly, a life changing event was about to unfold during her appointment.  To Miss McKinley's surprise, after she removed the bandages, they found larva growing and squirming within the pores and sores of her breast. Sometimes these wicked creatures would all together simultaneously move around into different crevices. What she didn't know was that the holes were in fact, deeper than she had originally thought for these larvae were feeding off the fat, tissue, and even milk canals of her bosom. The holes were 5 cm deep. She was operated on and the larva was removed from her breast. Therefore always take a slight rash serious and have the eggs removed before it is to late. Cheers and may the creatures leave you in peace. [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Read the article first before looking at the picture and film. This looks horrible. Oh my God!!!!!!! Ladies this could happen to you and Guys this could happen to your wife, girlfriend, partner so please BEWARE,and also warn others. (see the 2 files attached) It has been reported that this is happening in Zimbabwe as well, please make sure you iron your undergarments before you wear them and make sure that your clothes are ironed when they are dry and not damp. The picture is horrible but I felt that I should share with you. [Collected via e-mail, 2006] ALL, PLEASE WASH ALL BRAS, UNDERWEAR WHEN YOU BUY BEFORE WEARING THEM. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT PARASITE IS IN OUR CLOTHES WHEN WE BUY THEM. FORWARD TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW. LET ME FORE WARN YOU THIS IS SO SQUIMISH, I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING IS CRAWLING ALL OVER ME EVEN AS I SEND THIS TO YOU. BE AWARE. IT IS SO GROTESQUE.PLEASE WASH YOUR UNDERWEAR BEFORE WEARING. PREFERABLY IN BOILING HOT WATER. This is not for the weak, I have never seen anything like this. Read the article first before looking at the picture and film. This looks horrible. Oh my God!!!!!!! [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] YOU MUST READ BELOW BEFORE OPENING THE PICTURES. SHARE THIS WITH, DAUGHTERS, SISTERS, FRIENDS...ANY WOMAN My brother was recently telling me of a news story he heard regarding a flesh-eating bacteria found in new clothing shipments to the USA. These are the first pictures I have seen regarding that very subject. After seeing the attached photos, I understand the gravity of what he was telling me. This is something that is a very real and very serious concern as you will see. Ladies / gentelmens please make it a habit from this point forward to wash your just purchased undergarments before wearing them.Or spinning them in the dryer. This is sensitive. Please share with as many women and men that you know. Our undergarments are made in different parts of the country, sit in boxes and go through many hands and exchanges before we purchasethem for ourselves. TO ALL , PLEASE WASH ALL BRAS, UNDERWEAR ( ALL CLOTHING ) WHEN YOU BUY BEFORE WEARING THEM. YOU CAN THROW THEN IN THE DRYER FOR A QUICK SPIN TO KILL THE PARASITES TOO !! WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT PARASITE IS IN OUR CLOTHES WHEN WE BUY THEM. FORWARD TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW. The attached photos are not for the weak hearted. This item is another example of a common online phenomenon: Someone makes an image available, the picture begins to circulate through sharing, the original attribution or explanation for the image gets lost along the way (or was never provided), people begin to make up stories to explain the origin of the now-sourceless picture, and those fabricated explanations become attached to the image as it continues to circulate. We've seen this phenomenon before in the maggot photographs (disturbing image warning), only in this case it isn't just the explanation that's fabricated; the image is a phony one created through digital manipulation as well. maggot This image appeared on the internet back in June 2003 (on a web site with a collection of other manipulated photographs); at that time it carried no explanation at all and was soon attributed by others to some new type of "body modification." Not until a couple of months later did it pick up the story about an anthropologist named "Susan McKinley" who returned from a South American expedition to notice a "very strange rash" on her breast caused by "larvae" which were "feeding off the fat, tissue, and even milk canals of her bosom." No known medical condition causes a result like the one depicted here, and the breast tissue around the supposed "larvae infestation" (larvae of what?) is too healthy (no redness, inflammation, or necrosis) to be believable. This image appears to be the product of the melding of a photograph of a woman's breast and a picture of something similar to a lotus seed pod:   In 2005 someone combined the picture and text quoted in the example above with an existing video clip that seemingly showed maggot-like creatures being removed by forceps from a woman's infected breast, and in November 2005 we began seeing versions that claimed the patient had developed her condition due to the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005:  My aunt, Head Nurse at Tulane Memorial hospital in New Orleans Louisiana sent me this email. The attached video is that of a female patient who, due to the flooding of her home wore the same clothes for days. The contamination in the water was so bad she first broke out with a rash on her breast and then she had a lump on her breast and she popped it and puss excreted from the lump. After treating it herself for days she finally went to seek medical attention and when she did they foundserious infection! They later sedated the patient and found that these insects were within the fatty tissues of her breast and within the milk producing glands (sorry not a medic), she is also 3 months pregnant! And to think, we though Rita was bad on us! If you pay attention you can see them moving in and out, gross, but one of the issues they are now dealing with in New Orleans with patients. The referenced clip was a genuine video, but it had no connection to Hurricane Katrina. It showed the treatment of a Nigerian patient with breast lesions and multiple sinuses containing Tumbu fly larvae. (Fourteen separate larvae were eventually extracted from the breast.) The authors of a 2004 medical journal article on the case noted at the time that only "one case has been reported in the English literature." article In 2006, someone combined the following text with a series of photographs of patients experiencing what look like severe rashes, infections, and necrosis of the upper chest and breasts. The specific origins of these photos are unknown to us, but they likely depict the advanced stages of breast cancer. (WARNING: Viewers may find the pictures displayed in this link disturbing.) photographs On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.