Was Carter's peanut farm sold when he assumed the presidency?
As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts: conflicts of interest         In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media: court ruled that a lawsuit social media   While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981.  On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust: released listed The transition group has studied existing laws and regulations bearing on conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics of officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy ... In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm: suffered While he serves as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone elses care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. In regards to a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020.  If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction: back on the construction site announced Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic, said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful to their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture." Gerstein, Josh.  "Appeals court Greenlights Emoluments Suit Against Trump."
  Politico.  14 May 2020. Folley, Aris.  "Jimmy Carter Back to Building Homes for Habitat for Humanity One Day After Fall."
  The Hill.  7 October 2019. The New York Times.  "Texts of Carter Statement on Conflicts of Interest and Ethics; Appointees Guidelines."
  5 January 1977. Buchanan, Larry.  "The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency."
  The New York Times.  14 December 2016.
An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: was announced Donald Trump tweet They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries.   The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. long-spanning misinformation campaign Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote "dumps" helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. similar assertions key battleground states As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls  to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19  increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. Georgia law The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Associated Press Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes.  In regards to the president's assertion regarding a "dump" of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims.  "Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times," the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. news release Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: reported Its still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. "Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties," the newspaper reported.  At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit.   At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of States office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously "finding" 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of states office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there werent found ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterdays totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday.   In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim "false." In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596 On Nov. 22, 2022, we received an email from a reader who spotted a survey scam on the Facebook page named "Groceries today" that promised a "$500 store credit" or "$500 Walmart credit" to users.  We were unable to find the origins of the picture of the Walmart employee and the carful of groceries, but it likely showed products provided in the past as part of a charity food drive. In other words, the person pictured in the post had nothing to do with the scam. Survey scams usually begin on social media with a big promise, then ask users who clicked on the posts to fill out a seemingly endless amount of online surveys with further promises of other prizes. This survey scam that promised a $500 store credit to Walmart asked for personal information and perhaps even financial data. We strongly recommend against believing in any offers that don't come from a company's official social media pages. As we've mentioned in the past, some survey scams often begin with a big promise of $750 delivered via PayPal or Cash App. Usually, the scammers who create the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that pop up during the survey scams, as they might land them small amounts of referral commission. At the same time, survey scams also have a chance of being quite dangerous,reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize  something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a"free trial" offerthat's actually a costly subscription for adietary supplementor other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use foridentity theftor sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise all of our readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing this article with family members or friends who often shop at Walmart, as they might be more susceptible to falling for the scams. Note: Walmart does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion, but they don't use Facebook to do it. does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion "Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information."AARP, 1 Sept. 2021, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. "Groceries Today." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/Groceries-today-107660332152080/. Liles, Jordan. "Was Walmart Giving Away $1,000 Gift Cards by Email?" Snopes, 7 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-1000-gift-cards/. In early October 2018, social media users shared a meme bearing a critical message about Sen. Joe Manchin, the lone Democrat who voted to confirm U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and his daughter, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch:   It's no secret Bresch is the daughter of the U.S. senator from West Virginia, and that father and daughter were the subjects of two very different and unrelated controversies. Bresch runs Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, a medical device that delivers a dose of life-saving epinephrine to people with severe allergies which can result in a deadly reaction known as anaphylaxis. In late summer 2016, Mylan was widely criticized for hiking the price of EpiPens by more than 400 percent, taking the price of the device from $100 in 2009 to roughly $600 in 2016. anaphylaxis hiking taking Manchin, on the other hand, earned the ire of his party and other critics when he broke ranks on 6 October 2018 and voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused by three women of sexual misconduct while he was a high school and college student, to the United States Supreme Court. One of the accusers, California college professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified about being assaulted as a 15-year-old, sparking an outcry and protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation. Mancin's vote broke the tie between Republican and Democratic senators, who otherwise voted along party lines. Amid the EpiPen controversy, Manchin voiced his support for his daughter, saying, "My daughter is my daughter with unconditional love, and she's the most amazing person that I know. She's so compassionate and generous in how she's always lived her life." saying It was not the first time Bresch's role at Mylan was used to attack her father politically -- in fact, Manchin took heat over it from the other side of the aisle as he fought to keep his seat in the November 2018 midterm elections: heat The RNC bashed Manchin after Mylan announced it was laying off 500 people at a plant in West Virginia. Manchin has taken heat before from his opponents over Mylans decision a few years ago to jack up the price of allergy drug EpiPen by 500 percent. Amidst the layoffs and scandals, Mylan has continued to contribute to Manchin's war chest for his upcoming election, an RNC bulletin said. Mylan executives and employees contributed more than $50,000 to Manchin's campaign in the first quarter of 2018. However, barring some yet-unknown potential future ruling by Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court that might benefit Mylan, it's unclear why the meme's makers considered the familial relationship between Manchin and Bresch relevant, other than to imply some vague nefarious characteristic they supposedly share. Wright, David.  "Manchin Defends CEO Daughter After Company Raised EpiPen Price."
  CNN.  7 September 2016. McClausland, Phil.  "Mylan Releases $300 Generic EpiPen After Price Hike Outrage."
  NBC News.  16 December 2016. King, Robert.  "Republicans Tarnish Joe Manchin with EpiPen Scandal."
  Washington Examiner.  28 April 2018. It's not uncommon for the human eye to pick out familiar-seeming shapes among clouds in the sky, nor for the human mind to experience, however briefly, the sensation that such a resemblance is more than just coincidental. There's a name for this general phenomenon: pareidolia. pareidolia It's also not uncommon, especially in this era of digital image manipulation and virality, for human beings to fabricate "eerie" photographs along the same lines to share on social media. There's also a name for this general phenomenon: hoaxes. A perfect example of the latter came to Snopes' attention in January 2023, in the form of a YouTube video (originally posted on TikTok) supposedly showing a cloud formation in the shape of shockingly detailed "praying hands." Watch: praying hands  Interestingly, in addition to the above video captioned "A strange cloud in the sky of America," a very similar video can be found elsewhere on YouTube with the caption, "The cloud appeared in the sky of Ukraine during the war." Here is a comparison between the two "cloud formations": very similar video  (YouTube screenshots) Note how artificial the "cloud hands" appear in both of these videos. Note, too, how similar to each other they appear as if they were both modeled after the same source image. We found other specimens with the same similarities. other specimens Clearly, these videos and photographs were the products of digital editing, not miraculous meteorological events. What source image might they have been modeled after? Our vote goes to this drawing of praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer, dating from about 1500: Praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), circa 1500. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)  Definition of PAREIDOLIA. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pareidolia. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. "Praying Hands by the German Artist Albrecht Durer , circa 1500." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/praying-hands-by-the-german-artist-albrecht-durer-circa-news-photo/2635952. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing "behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket" as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: photograph  The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: caption Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark "March on Washington" civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: stated speech On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., "one of the great leaders in American history." Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his "I have a dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. "We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life." As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was "brief and localized" and effectively ended in 1963: noted Civil Rights Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: Paul Reese In short: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX https://t.co/EseJmycaVX  Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, 2016 February 12, 2016 [featured-image] Claim:USAF General Chuck Yeager wrote an essay endorsing Donald Trump for President.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, December2015] I've been repeatedly seeing a post that Chuck Yeager is endorsing Donald Trump for President.But on Yeager's website there is no mention of it and he seems to shy away from politics, in general. Origins: On 5 November 2015, the web site GaryForbes.wix.com published an article purportedly written by retiredUnited States Air Force General Chuck Yeager, endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States: article The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he's had and all the business deals he's made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, hes actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didnt brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trumps plan is for America. Its funny how so many people say they dont know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans: This article, titled "Donald Trump  Who He REALLY Is by Chuck Yeager," was not written bythe retired USAF General, nor was it first published on theGary Forbes web site. The article has been posted on a variety of blogs and web sites, with the earliest iteration being published to Doug Johnson's Horse Sense blog on 4 July 2015. variety blogs published Johnson's article wasn't particularly popular, but the majority of its content soon started circulating via e-mail and online forums, where it was cmommonly attributed to an "unknown author."Chuck Yeager's name was eventually tacked on to the essay, first by Catholic.org in August, and later by Gary Forbes, but this form of credit was undertaken without the USAF General's knowledge or approval. attributed August In fact, General Yeager has asked some Twitter users to delete links tothe purported endorsement,maintaining that he does not endorse political candidates (although he has apparently done so before): delete apparently      Last updated: 7 December 2015 Originally published: 7 December 2015 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here During the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate held in Cleveland on Sept. 29, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in Congress by members of his own party proposing strategies for dealing with climate change, but instead backs the Biden Plan for doing so, which is laid out on his campaign website. Biden's disavowal came on the heels of an attempt by his opponent, U.S. President Donald Trump, to tie him to the Green New Deal, claiming it would cost $100 trillion if implemented. Biden's responses (which begin one hour and 20 minutes into the below video clip) were as follows: That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan. [] The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. Were not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants. [] No, I dont support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden Plan that I put forward. The Biden Plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?475793-1/trump-biden-debate These statements sparked criticism from Republicans like Omar Navarro, who ran three unsuccessful bids for Californias 43d Congressional District in 2016, 2018, and again in 2020. On Sept. 30, Navarro shared a screenshot from Bidens website that described the Green New Deal as a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges Omar Navarro  three unsuccessful bids   The language in the tweeted screenshot above was indeed found on Bidens website as of Sept. 30, but was taken out of context and doesn't reflect the differences between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal, which we will discuss below. The Green New Deal resolution was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2019, in response to Trumps 2017 announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The 14-page proposal sets forth a number of policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions produced by American companies, creating high-wage jobs for Americans, and to set an overall framework for environmental justice and resiliency against climate change-related disasters. It is important to note that the Green New Deal is nonbinding, and if it were to pass, nothing outlined within its pages would become law. 14-page proposal nonbinding Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his 2020 bid for the presidency, in turn criticizing Trump's handling of environmental affairs. It is true that the Biden Plan (archived here for reference) includes elements of the Green New Deal and is similar to it in that both plans agree that the U.S. needs to act urgently and epically to meet the scope of the climate change challenge, and that the environment and the economy are completely and totally connected. The Biden Plan addresses many of the issues outlined in the Green New Deal, with the addition of specific actions that a Biden administration would take should he be elected in November 2020. cornerstone Biden Plan here We dug through both proposals to understand the nuances between the two, where they differ, and where they are the same. Generally speaking, both policies establish a similar framework but differ in the specifics of how policymakers should go about enforcing and reaching defined goals. For example, both plans highlight the importance of clean, safe drinking water and community-driven projects that promote social and environmental justice in areas disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.  The greatest difference between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal lies in their stances on the Paris Agreement, an international agreement established in 2015 with the central aim of coordinating and strengthening the global response to climate change and keeping the global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whereas the Biden Plan promises a recommitment to the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal does not mention it at all.  Paris Agreement When it comes to clean energy, the Green New Deal and the Biden Plan are similar in that they aim to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions, but the former sets forth a 10-year mobilization deadline, whereas the Biden Plan sets a goal of no later than 2050. Both plans establish priorities for investment in clean energy innovation and research; however, the Biden Plan is far vaguer. The Green New Deal goes into greater detail, specifying that those investments should include infrastructure and industry, sustainable farming and land-use practices, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, manufacturing public transit, removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry, and the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies. Other key areas of overlap between the two plans include creating resiliency across the nation and committing to international policy and trade that employ strong labor and environmental protections. According to his website, the Biden plan will be paid for by rolling back Trump tax incentives and will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next decade, leveraging the additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion. This estimated cost is significantly lower than the $100 trillion bill that Trump claimed the U.S. would foot during the debate. However, serious disagreement exists over how much implementation of the Green New Deal might actually cost.  website After its 2019 introduction by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Republican leaders and some media publications cited research by the right-wing think tank American Action Forum that speculated the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion, or an estimated $600,000 per household, in its first 10 years. (A supplementary brief from the organization outlining the projected costs can be found here.) But a number of financial experts have countered that research, suggesting that it is more likely that the Green New Deal would cost significantly less, and in some estimates half as much. In fact, a September 2020 study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science suggested a total overall cost of just over $16 trillion over 15 years. media publications American Action Forum here financial experts estimates Energy Research & Social Science Though both the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal provide similar general frameworks for moving towards a cleaner economy and combating the effects of climate change at a national level, subtle differences exist between the two. Although Biden stated outright that he does not support the Green New Deal, it is apparent from his own policy statements that he supports elements of it that have been incorporated into his own plan. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." Green New Deal Friedman, Lisa.  "What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained."
  The New York Times.  21 Feb. 2019.  116th Congress 1st Session  "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal."
  7 Feb. 2019.  Muyskens, John, Uhrmacher, Kevin.  "Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change."
  The Washington Post.  8 April 2019.  Relman, Eliza.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Re, Gregg.  "Green New Deal Would Cost Up To $93 Trillion, Or $600G Per Household, Study Says."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, et al.  "The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas.  "An Initial Analysis of the Green New Deal."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Sherman, Amy.  "The Green New Deal Would Put a $600,000 Tax Burden on Every Household."
  PolitiFact.  27 Sept.. 2019.  McDonald, Jessica.  "How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?"
  FactCheck.org.  14 March 2019.  Galvin, Ray and Noel Healy.  "The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay For It."
  Energy Research & Social Science .  September 2020. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, presidential candidate Donald Trump singled out the evangelical and religious community for their assistance in getting him nominated. They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits, he said. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away, Trump said. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans. We were curious about the issue and whether an amendment  constitutional or otherwise  prevents the practice for religious institutions. For this fact-check, we're relying largely scholarly articles in theDenver University Law Review, theCase Western Reserve Law Review,Boston College Law Review. The restriction is actually a law, not an amendment, and it isn't exclusive to religious institutions. Lyndon Johnson is best known as America's 36th president, the Texan who assumed the office when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Texas politics can be rough, and Johnson knew how to play that game. Therein lies the origin of the Johnson amendment. The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved. Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations,includinggroups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics. There was no record of any debate around the amendment. The logical argument favoring such an amendment is that those corporations qualifying for the section 501(c)(3) tax subsidy should not be permitted to directly or indirectly use that subsidy to support candidates for office, said Michael Hone in the Case Western article. However it was likely, he said, that Johnson was motivated by a desire to exact revenge on the foundation he believed supported his opponent and to prevent it and other nonprofit corporations from acting similarly in the future. Nonetheless, Subsequently it proved to have a profound effect on how thousands of tax-exempt organizations  including churches  dealt with issues relating to political campaigns, according to Patrick O'Daniel of the University of Texas School of Law in the Boston College article. Thelaw saysall such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates. Violating the restriction could result in the revocation of the organization's tax exempt status and the imposition of taxes. Nonpartisan, unbiased voter education or similar activities such as church-organized voter registration drives are allowed. Historically, that hasn't stopped some religious organizations from issuing endorsements anyway. O'Daniel has a list of examples. To cite two from 2000: Rev. Jerry Falwelltold worshippersat the Genoa Baptist Church in Ohio to vote for the Bush of your choice and We simply have to beat (Al) Gore. That same year, a pastor at a Bronx church who supported Hillary Clinton's run for the U.S. Senate at the time, substituted her opponent's name for Satan during a hymn. In the face of lackluster opposition by the Internal Revenue Service, the Democrats and Republicans . . . continue to use the literal bully pulpits of the churches to preach to the party faithful, O'Daniel wrote. Nonetheless, the threat of losing tax-exempt status persists as long as the law is in place, and politically-minded religious groups, particularly evangelicals, have regarded it as a suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion. In 2008, for example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law,according to the Pew Research Center. The GOP platform has picked up that cudgel,calling for the repealof that portion of the tax law. The Johnson amendment survived court challenges in 1983, 1990 and 2000,according to Pew. Our ruling Trump said, An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Trump is correct that the law was pushed by Johnson and that religious groups that advocate for candidates risk losing their tax exempt status. It's important to note that the prohibition is not just restricted to religious institutions. It's nonprofit charitable organizations in general. But overall, we rate the statement as True.