A letter addressed to President Obama by Lou Pritchett.
Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012
In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz:  SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. As U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman recently told workers at a small business in Bergen County, the middle-class must pick up the tab for wealthy Americans paying their lowest income tax rate in 80 years.The congressman pointed to that reduced tax rate during a campaign video posted Feb. 13 on YouTube, where he is seen talking to employees of Lanzo Plumbing in Hackensack.If these guys and gals making over a million dollars a year...wont pay their fair share because the Republicans are protecting them, that means working people and the middle-class and seniors have to pick up the tab for them. Its crazy, Rothman (D-9th Dist.) said. They're paying a less rate of tax -- these richest people in America -- than they have in the last 80 years.As PolitiFact New Jersey found, Rothmans claim is off, but not by much.The federal income tax rate for the top income bracket stood at 35 percent in 2011, marking a lower statutory rate than during most of the last eight decades. But for five tax years -- 1988 to 1992 -- the top rates were lower than they are today, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.Now, lets trace the evolution of the top income tax rate.In 1931, the top rate was 25 percent on taxable income greater than $100,000. The following year, the top rate increased to 63 percent on income above $1 million, and then grew in 1936 to 79 percent on income greater than $5 million.The top rate remained at 70 percent or greater through 1980 -- and exceeded 90 percent during World War II and from the early 1950s to the early 1960s.By 1988, the top rate fell to 28 percent and stayed there through 1990. For 1991 and 1992, the top rate rose to 31 percent, and then increased to 39.6 percent for tax years 1993 to 2000. In 2003, the top rate reached its current level of 35 percent.So, for most of the last 80 years, the top statutory rate has been higher than it is today, with the exception of tax years 1988 to 1992.Since various tax deductions can reduce an overall tax bill, we also looked at actual taxes paid as a percentage of ones income.According to a June 2010 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent of households, on average, paid 19 percent of their income in federal income taxes in 2007. That figure was lower than amounts paid in 25 of the 28 years between 1979 and 2006, according to the budget office.Its worth noting that as a group, the top 1 percent were covering a larger share of federal income taxes in 2007 than they did in 1979.Still, based on taxes paid as a percentage of income, Rothmans claim is mostly on target.Paul Swibinski, a consultant to Rothmans campaign, told us the congressmans statement was close enough. But he argued that Rothman was speaking off the cuff and said scoring him as partially truthful would send the wrong message.Steve was being completely genuine and completely honest, Swibinski said in an e-mail. Do we want our politicians to parse every single word they say -- just go around repeating the same words over and over because it's safe ? ?? That would seem to me to contradict the purpose of Politifact.Our rulingIn a YouTube video, Rothman claimed the wealthiest Americans are paying a lower tax rate than they have in the last 80 years.We looked at two measures -- the top statutory income tax rates and taxes paid as a percentage of ones income. In both cases, Rothmans statement is slightly off, but his overall point about current income tax rates is solid.The top statutory rate is lower now than during most of the last eight decades, and the top 1 percent of households were paying a smaller percentage of their income in federal income taxes as of 2007 than in nearly all of the previous 28 years.We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. On 7 December 2016 , a meme appeared on social media that claimed an unnamed "liberal group" sought to tear down a 90-year-old World War I memorial, because they found it offensive: meme   The post contained no information or citation, did not name the "liberal group" involved, the location of the memorial, the date of the purported controversy, and the grounds by which these individuals believed the monument to be offensive. (Nevertheless, the item's share count reached six digits in just two days.) The image was easily identifiable as the Bladensburg, Maryland "Peace Cross" (known simply as the Bladensburg Cross): Bladensburg Known also as Peace Cross. The Snyder-Farmer Post of the American Legion of Hyattsville erected the forty foot cross of cement and marble to recall the forty-nine men of Prince Georges County who died in World War I. The cross was dedicated on July 13, 1925, by the American Legion. A bronze tablet at the base of the monument contains the unforgettable words of Woodrow Wilson: The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves. At the base of the monument are the words, Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion. At its heart, the cross bears a great gold star. A 7 December 2016 Washington Post article reported that years-long litigation over the cross was brought by the American Humanist Association due to the religious nature of the public memorial: reported The high court has allowed some monuments with religious content to stand and rejected others on public sites ... The towering, pink-hued cross honors the 49 Prince Georges County men who died in World War I. The monument was completed in 1925 with funds raised by the American Legion and local families. It sits on land owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a state agency that pays for upkeep and repairs, according to court filings. The appeal was brought by the American Humanist Association after a U.S. District Court judge [in 2015] declined to order that the cross be removed, saying that it is a historically significant secular war memorial. The original complaint [PDF] was filed in February 2015 against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. In the suit's opening lines, the plaintiffs explained the action was not because they found the symbol itself offensive:  PDF This action challenges the constitutionality of the Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of a massive Christian cross (the Bladensburg Cross) as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to Maryland by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under "Causes of Action," the group reiterated its motivation in bringing the suit: The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross amounts to the endorsement and advancement of religion (and, specifically, an endorsement of and affiliation with Christianity) in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross lacks a secular purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross fosters excessive governmental entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendant acted under color of state law in violating the First Amendment as described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The American Humanist Association said repeatedly that the litigation was about what the group argued was a violation of the Establishment Clause, not a matter of offense. A 26 February 2014 article in The Humanist further explained the suit: Establishment Clause explained At the core of the First Amendments Establishment Clause is the principle that the government must not favor or prefer some religions over others, or religion over non-religion. No matter how small the preference may seem to some, particularly to adherents of the favored religion, the framers of the Constitution believed that The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent. When the government erects an exclusively Christian monument on government property, it violates this central command of the Establishment Clause by sending a clear message that Christianity is the preferred religion over all others. When the religious monument is dedicated to fallen soldiers, it sends an even more egregious message that only Christian soldiers are worth memorializing. Non-Christian soldiers such as atheists and humanists are inherently excluded. Such is the case with a cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, commonly known as the Peace Cross, which stands forty-feet high on a government-owned median between roadways. In addition to the obvious sectarian nature of the Latin cross, the Bladensburg cross was also erected with religious motives ... In seeking the removal of the Bladensburg cross, the American Humanist Association seeks only to eliminate this stigmatic message to non-adherents of Christianity. It urges the government to erect an inclusive monument that will honor all fallen soldiers, regardless of their faith. On 30 November 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported that a federal court in Maryland ruled the Bladensburg cross was constitutional, a decision that prompted the December 2016 appeal: reported The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled [in November 2015] that even though the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial, a 40-foot-tall monument erected in 1925, takes the shape of a cross, its purpose is not primarily religious. Therefore, the court found, it does not violate the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Social media users were riled once again about the controversy after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, prompting a Fox News opinion column by Todd Starnes on 18 October 2017: column In 2014, the American Humanist Association -- a group that believes in "being good without a god" -- filed a lawsuit alleging the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed ... On [17 October 2017], the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled the historic memorial must be torn down -- all because the Bladensburg Memorial is in the shape of a cross.   [...] I warned Americans in my new book, The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again, that the war against religious liberty and traditional American values is far from over. A militant group of atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers want to eradicate Christianity in the public marketplace. The only way to stop this evil scourge is for people of faith to stand together and fight back in the courts. Starnes did not mention that the American Humanist Association's "[urged] the government to erect an inclusive monument that will honor all fallen soldiers, regardless of their faith" or that the cross was on public land. The Baltimore Sun reported: reported A federal appeals court ruled that a 40-foot, cross-shaped war memorial that has stood on public land in Maryland for nearly a century is unconstitutional because it excessively entangles the government with religion ... The 2-1 ruling reverses a 2015 district court decision that found the purpose of the cross is not primarily religious and that the site has been used almost exclusively for celebrating federal holidays. Supporters of the memorial have raised the impact an adverse decision could have on other sites  notably, Arlington National Cemetery. Crosses are common on headstones and elsewhere at the cemetery. A 24-foot granite cross, the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, is positioned near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The court dismissed the notion that the two sites are related. The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here, the court wrote. And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing in dissent, questioned the legal significance of the crosss size. In the majoritys view, the memorial is unconstitutional based predominantly on the size of the cross, and neither its secular features nor history could overcome the presumption, Gregory wrote. But such a conclusion is contrary to our constitutional directive.  Fritze, John.  "Appeals Court Rules That Peace Cross In Bladensburg Violates The Constitution."
  Baltimore Sun.  18 October 2017. Marimow, Anne E.  "Could Moving a Giant Cross or Cutting Off Its Arms Resolve a 1st Amendment Case?"
  The Washington Post.  7 December 2016. Miller, Monica.  "Why We Sued Bladensburg, Md Over a 40-Foot Cross."
  The Humanist.  26 February 2014. Pitts, Jonathan.  "Court Finds Cross Memorial Constitutional."
  Baltimore Sun.  30 November 2016. Starnes, Todd.  "Federal Court Rules World War I Memorial Cross Must Be Torn Down."
  Fox News.  18 October 2017. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  "American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission."
  25 February 2014. The Town of Bladensburg.  "Memorial Cross."
  Accessed 9 December 2016. Updated [19 October 2017]: Added information about a 17 October 2017 reversal of the 2015 decision deeming the preservation of Bladensburg cross constitutionally sound. Elected officials pay can be a sensitive topic with taxpayers, especially in todays economic climate. So its no surprise Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce, who is running in November to keep his job, is bragging about cutting his salary.Boyce talked about his six-figure earnings in a YouTube video released by his office. Presented as a preview of the offices forthcoming annual financial report, the production feels more like a tribute to Boyces performance as treasurer aimed directly at voters.Ive even cut my salary -- twice, said Boyce, a Democrat and former Columbus city councilman.Boyce was appointed Treasurer in late 2008. Richard Cordray left a vacancy when he took the state attorney generals job in the wake of Marc Danns resignation.Annual salaries for the states elected officials are set in state law, which lawmakers can amend to increase or decrease pay. The treasurers salary has been set at $109,986 since 2008.In June 2009, Boyce sent a memo to the state Department of Administrative Services saying he was taking a pay cut that would reduce his gross salary that year to $107,874. The pay cut, effective July 1, 2009, was the equivalent of taking five unpaid furlough days, a cost-saving measure that has been forced upon many state employees.In the same memo, Boyce authorized an extension of the reduction for all of 2010. This years pay cut is the equivalent of 10 unpaid furlough days, according to the administrative services department.Boyces gross salary this year will be $105,757.Boyce lumped both cuts -- each about 2 percent -- in the same memo, but he effectively trimmed his salary twice. Had he not extended the cut into 2010, his pay wouldve jumped back up to $109,986, a spokeswoman for the administrative services department said.We find Boyces statement True. Comment on this item. Urban legendry includes numerous "windfall" tales involving fortuitous discoveries of seemingly ordinary objects that proved to be extraordinarily valuable. (See our King of the Rode article for one example.) Every now and then one of these windfall things turns out to be for real, however. In 1989, a Philadelphia financial analyst bought an old painting (a depiction of a country scene) for $4 at a flea market in Adamstown, Pennsylvania, mostly because he liked the frame. He liked it even more once he found that the painting housed a rare and valuable document. The buyer was investigating a tear in the canvas, and the frame fell apart in his hands when he attempted to detach it from the painting, leading him to discover a folded document that appeared to be an old copy of the Declaration of Independence stored between the canvas and its wood backing. After a friend who collected Civil War memorabilia advised him to have it appraised, he learned that the document was in fact a rare original Dunlap broadside, one of 500 official copies from the first printing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Only 23 similar copies were known to exist before this find, of which a mere two were privately owned:  This rare document was offered for sale by Sotheby's on 4 June 1991, and the lucky find fetched even more than had been anticipated: the $800,000 to $1.2 million estimate turned into a $2.42 million sale by the sound of the gavel: "This was a record for any printed Americana," said David Redden, the auctioneer, who is a senior vice president at Sotheby's in Manhattan. "It was far and away the highest price for historical Americana ever." The copy sold [by Sotheby's] is a crisp, clean broadside, creased along lines where it had been folded. It was printed by John Dunlap on July 4, 1776, to carry news of America's independence to the citizens of the 13 colonies. It is one of 24 known copies of the Declaration, and one of only three remaining in private hands. The previous owner, who was not identified, had told Sotheby's he bought a torn painting for $4 in a flea market in Adamstown, Pa., because he was interested in its frame. When he got home, he said, he removed the painting  a dismal country scene  and concluded the frame could not be salvaged, but found the Declaration, folded and hidden in the backing. He showed it to Sotheby's experts earlier this year. Mr. Redden said he thought the man would be "rather stunned" to learn the price it had brought. This charming story was later turned to a commercial purpose: In the autumn of 1997, SunAmerica ran television commercials based on the original finder's tale, utilizing the theme that you could either hope to get lucky like he did, or you could work out an investment plan with SunAmerica. This document was put up for sale again in June 2000, fetching an $8.14 million bid from television producer Norman Lear in an online auction. It then became the centerpiece of the Norman Lear Center's Declaration of Independence Road Trip, which took it on a three-and-a-half year cross-country tour: Declaration of Independence Road Trip The goal of the project was to bring the "People's Document" directly to all Americans  especially young people  to inspire them to see citizenship as an opportunity; to participate in civic life; to exercise their rights; and above all, to vote. As the Road Trip traveled to cities and towns across the United States, it creatively combined elements of education, entertainment, and community outreach. When TV producer and philanthropist Norman Lear learned that the Dunlap broadside would be auctioned, he saw it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring it to the American people. Lear purchased it and development of the project now known as the Declaration of Independence Road Trip began. March 2006 saw a smaller-scale repetition of this experience when Michael Sparks was browsing a thrift shop in Nashville, Tennessee, and happened upon a yellowed, shellacked, rolled-up document. Learning from a clerk that the item could be had for a mere $2.48, Sparks purchased it, took it home, and after doing some online research eventually learned that he had bought one of 200 "official copies" of the Declaration of Independence commissioned by John Quincy Adams in 1820. He spent nearly a year authenticating and conserving the document before selling it at auction in March 2007, where it fetched $477,650. After Michael Sparks' lucky find made the news in February 2007, Stan Caffy contacted reporter Mary Hance of the Tennessean and claimed that he was the one who had (unwittingly) donated the valuable document to the Music City Thrift store in March 2006: "I bought it at a yard sale in Donelson about 10 years, ago, in Donelson Hills, I think," said Stan Caffy, a pipe fitter. For years, the document hung in Stan Caffy's garage, where he works on bicycles as a hobby. He married his wife, Linda, a little more than a year ago. As part of the ritual of combining households, she pushed him to clean out the garage, which had filled up with all sorts of extraneous things. "I used to be a packrat but now I am trying to get rid of things. The best I can recall, we had a little debate about whether to keep it (the Declaration) or donate it and she won." And so it was that Linda took the Declaration along with a pile of other stuff  an antique table, a shower massage head, and a faucet  to donate to the Music City Thrift store last March. "I'm happy for the Sparks guy," Stan said. "If I still had it, it would still be hanging here in the garage and I still wouldn't know it was worth all that. It is just life. So I'm not really upset. But you can't help but feel not very smart for doing it." Blau, Eleanor.  "Declaration of Independence Sells for $2.4 Million."   The New York Times.  14 June 1991. Hance, Mary.  "Turns Out, Expensive Document Was Tossed by Guy Cleaning Out His Garage."   The Tennessean.  23 February 2007. Trillin, Calvin.  "Lucky Find."   The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  10 April 1991  (p. A11). Winship, Frederick.  "First Printing of Declaration Sold for $2.42 Million."   United Press International.  14 June 1991. Associated Press  "Declaration of Independence for $2.48."   23 February 2007. Associated Press  "Declaration Nets Lucky Owner Huge Profit."   23 March 2007. The Courier-Journal.  "$4 Painting Yields $2.42 Million Bid."   14 June 1991  (p. A2). Los Angeles Times.  "Declaration Copy Sold for $2.4 Million."   14 June 1991  (p. A19). Los Angeles Times.  "Found, Under $4 Flea-Market Art: A $1-Million Memento from 1776."   3 April 1991  (p. A14). Reuters.  "Declaration of Independence Copy Sold Online."   30 June 2000. Claim:  The federal government is planning to eliminate 16 states from the U.S.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] The America you know and love could look completely different in a matter of weeks. Under a plan circulating the D.C. corridor right now, up to 16 states are at risk to be terminated due to epic fiscal mismanagement. These states would simply be wiped from existence and merged into their neighbors. We've even seen the redrawn map of the U.S. and it's nothing less than terrifying. California may be forced to become a part of Mexico without any state strong enough to absorb it! Origins:  This item about a plan "circulating the D.C. corridor right now" to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. is nothing but more of the usual financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on by the folks at Wall Street Daily.  This latest panic piece  is offered in a Wall Street Daily video featuring a number of talking heads issuing scary-sounding statements about how the "U.S. government is only months away from a total financial collapse," then lurches head-on into tinfoil hat territory by describing some nebulous plan supposedly being hatched in Washington (by whom, exactly, is never explained) to carve the United States into ten economic regions, eliminating 16 states in the process by merging them into neighboring states (and, apparently, getting rid of a 17th state by kicking Hawaii out of the U.S. altogether).   video And according to Wall Street Daily, this remarkable, radical transformation of the United States, which hasn't yet been discussed, proposed, or voted upon by Congress, and which has somehow escaped the notice of the entire of the U.S. news media (other than Wall Street Daily, of course), is going into effect in a mere matter of weeks, by 15 October 2013:  Not surprisingly, this "redrawn map of the United States" just happens to correspond exactly with a map of administrative regions for the government agency most frequently mentioned in crazy conspiracy theories, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): FEMA  Aside from its sheer ridiculousness, this purported scheme for the federal government to enact a forcible redrawing the United States has a major problem in that it isn't possible, because the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits it.  Article IV, Section 3 of that document declares that states cannot be formed from, or merged with, other states without the consent of both Congress and the legislatures of the affected states: declares New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. So, if this is nothing but nonsense, what's the point to it?  The point is that if you make up a bunch of stuff that sounds sufficiently alarming, and you promote your product as something that will help protect people against this scary thing that isn't really happening, you might be able to lure some gullible folks into sending their money (i.e., a "very limited, introductory offer" price of $49.50, plus a yearly "discounted rate" of $79) to you: money It's crucial that you obtain a copy of the redrawn map of the United States and spread the word quickly about its existence. Circulate it amongst your friends and family. Let them know that this threat is real. That soon, the very state that they call their home... where they've raised their family, paid taxes and planned their future in, may soon no longer exist. Whether or not your state is targeted for termination, its essential that you begin taking steps, such as the ones contained inside the Mayflower Maneuver, to best position yourself for the future. And that means staying informed continually about this developing situation. Last updated:   18 September 2013 As the protests against an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation escalated in November 2016, environmentalist activists began targeting financial institutions backing the Dakota Access Pipeline and urging supporters to boycott them with various memes shared around social media, or petitions calling on the banks to pull their funds out of the project:   Financial documents from Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, lists a number of large banking institutions that have provided credit for the project, including: Credit Suisse; Royal Bank of Canada; Suntrust Bank; BNP Paribas; HSBC; Citibank; Morgan Stanley; Wells Fargo, Bank of America; and JP Morgan Chase. documents The Standing Rock Sioux, who fear the pipeline's route presents a threat to their sacred sites and water supply, have been fighting the project since 2014, but protesters calling themselves "water protectors," lead by the tribe, have been camping near the site since April 2016 in an effort to stop the project. As of late November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, and the governor of North Dakota, have made statements indicating they want the thousands of demonstrators encamped near the project site to leave. statements But the demonstration and continued opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux have turned an oil pipeline project into an intensifying cause that has drawn international scrutiny, an open letter from BankTrack notes: BankTrack The debacle has escalated into a national crisis and an international scandal. A member of the UNs Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has been deployed to North Dakota to monitor the situation, while President Obama has intervened to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to examine alternative routes for the pipeline. Meanwhile, the protest at Standing Rock is backed by over a million  and growing  allies worldwide, with numerous solidarity actions springing up across the United States and beyond, including protests at EPFI headquarters and outlets. The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project. Given the presumed Indigenous rights commitments of EPFIs, it is for us inexplicable that gross violations of Native land titles, threats to water sources and the desecration of burial grounds have not been identified early on as reasons for EPFIs to not provide funding for this project. However, this unfortunately fits into a documented and consistent pattern of disrespect of local communities and Indigenous rights by EPFI-backed projects worldwide. We understand that it is not the role of the EP Association to intervene in specific project situations. Nevertheless, we consider it crucial for the credibility of the Equator Principles as an effective safeguard against violation of Indigenous Peoples rights that your meeting calls upon the EPFIs involved in financing DAPL that they take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of the rights of Native Americans. The letter urges the banks to halt further loan payments and raises the concern that the project falls out of line with Equator Principles, a consortium that sets minimum standards to which signing institutions are expected to adhere on matters of community and environmental accountability. According to Energy Transfer Partners, the end project will be a 1,172-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline: ....that will connect the rapidly expanding Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois" enabling the domestic production of light sweet crude oil "to reach major refining markets in a more direct, cost-effective, safer and environmentally responsible manner. The pipeline is expected to carry 470,000 barrels of oil per day. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren has said the company will not reroute the pipeline. Frijns, Johan. "An open letter to the Equator Principles Association."
BankTrack. 7 November 2016. Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Environmentalists Target Bankers Behind Pipeline."
The New York Times. 7 November 2016. The Associated Press."Trumps Stock in Dakota Access Pipeline Company Raises Concern."
Fortune.26 November 2016. Kathie Tovo, facing Austin City Council Member Randi Shade in a June 18 runoff, says in aTV adthat debuted in April: Were in a budget crisis, but the council may give $4 million a year to subsidize a race track. Thats the wrong priority.City Hall coughing up for vroom-vroom?First, lets brake to define subsidy. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionarysaysits a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. Offered examples are expenditures for public transit or to farmers in case of crop failure.To back her claim, Tovos campaign pointed us to an eight-pagefact sheeton her website touching on money that could flow to support Formula One races to be held on a track being built east of Austins airport.According to the sheet, state Comptroller Susan Combs has agreed to provide $25 million a year for 10 years from a state trust fund to cover an annual sanctioning fee that local F1 organizers must pay to the British-based international race organization.The fund reimburses event organizers with some of the extra sales, hotel, alcohol and car rental tax revenue attributable to the event itself  i.e., money that the state theoretically would not have collected if the event had not been held. In the past it has been used to attract NFL Super Bowls and the Major League and NBA All-Star games.Per a 2009 state law, though, the states $25 million a year can only be spent if a local city or county government puts up $1 for every $6.25 in state aid. The law specifies that in order to get the state aid, local organizers need a local city or county to agree to endorse the event.So, $4 million a year is to be ginned up locally with the money would be dedicated to covering costs of staging the event -- police overtime, say, or erecting traffic barriers -- municipal expenses that might otherwise be charged to the promoter.Subsidy case closed?Not by the lights of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. A June 8 Austin American-Statesman newsarticlequotes Leffingwell saying during a June 7 City Council work session: The city will never put any money into the Formula One project.During the session, Richard Suttle, the projects Austin lawyer, said the first of the 10 payments will come from a local organizing committee, which in turn expects to get the money from the Formula One promoters. A city employee noted that the subsequent local contributions of $4 million will come from tax revenue the state expects to reap in connection with the races.Next, we asked Tovos camp why the $4 million amounts to a subsidy if the first installment is to come from a non-governmental source and future payments are expected to reflect tax revenue that presumably would not exist without the races.Jim Wick, Tovos deputy campaign manager, replied: What you have happening right now is the mayor and some members of the council are trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesnt appear the city (is) giving the promoters of this event a subsidy. It looks like fuzzy accounting.Shade campaign spokeswoman Lynda Rife pointed out by email that the trust fund money can be spent on the races -- not construction of the track itself. Also, each race is expected to generate more than $4 million in new tax revenue that wouldn't come to the city without the event taking place.Rifes email continued: If we dont generate that $4 million in new tax revenue from the event, then the city doesnt have to pay the whole $4 million. The city is not on the hook, if the event doesnt meet the performance standard, she said.Notably, the city can use its contribution to the trust fund to pay race-related expenses. According to Rodney Gonzales, deputy director of the city's Economic Growth and Development Services office, any amount not spent to cover hosting expenses would remain in the trust fund the next year and could not be spent for other municipal purposes.Time to wave our checkered flag.Maybe we missed a hairpin turn or two, but its clear the council is gearing up to vote on an agreement committing tax revenue to a trust fund devoted to supporting the F1 races.Subsidy? Sure, though Tovos statement skirts the expectation that the area will draw tax benefits equal to or exceeding the local expenditures. We rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C   Origins:  On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans.  article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve.  The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal.  If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site.     Last updated:  13 November 2014 <