Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.
Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. ... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.
Claim:  The Obama administration is selling blueprints for the B-2 Stealth Bomber to China in exchange for debt relief.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Is this true ? 6/5/2009: Security News Brief: Obama To Sell B-2 Stealth Bomber Blueprints To China The Defense Department is reportedly furious with Obama's proposal to sell blueprints of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to the People's Republic.  Gates has flatly rejected Obama's plan, but has since been asked to step down if he will not facilitate the process. According to the deal, the United States would sell the plans for the B-2, along with radar-absorbing paints and metals in exchange for $50 billion in debt relief.  The B-2 cost the US government $23 billion to develop the bomber in the 1980s. According to the Administration, this proposal will help the United States resolve its debt issues.  They point out their belief that the B-2 bomber is "strategically obsolete", according to a source in the White House Press Office.  In addition, the source claims that the Chinese would be unable to create their own functioning stealth bomberfleet for "at least eight years." [Rest of article here.] article Origins:  Although a weak economy and a growing foreign debt (held by nations not necessarily overly friendly to the U.S.) might be issues of pressing concern, the concept of raising funds by openly selling vital military secrets to a Communist country isn't quite a reality yet. The notion that the Obama administration would sell plans for the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber (a "low-observable, strategic, long-range, heavy bomber capable of penetrating sophisticated and dense air-defence shields") in exchange for a mere $50 billion in debt relief is simply another bit of  humorous fiction, a satirical piece published by the Jumping in Pools blog on 1 June 2009 (where it was tagged as such). B-2 Jumping in Pools such Other satirical articles from the Jumping in Pools blog include "Biden, Obama to Have Gaffe-Off," "US in Chaos as Teleprompter Assassinated," and "Palin to Join Obama Cabinet." Biden, Obama to Have Gaffe-Off US in Chaos as Teleprompter Assassinated Palin to Join Obama Cabinet Last updated:  28 July 2009 A handout urging voter support for aproposed $1.05 billion Austin school district bond issueon the November 2017 ballot singles out the need to repair and renovate schools averaging 40 years of age plus a desire to modernize or build 16 schools. Moreover, the handout from the Committee of Austins Children PAC says: Did you know? AISD Prop. 1 bonds will require no tax rate increase, a claim the group also makes onits website. Is that rate statement accurate? To rehash, the handout saysthe sought bondswont require a rate increase. Its silent on whether district residents will pay more in taxes if the proposition passes--which struck Austin lawyer Bill Aleshire, formerly Travis Countys elected judge, as misleading. Aleshire, who brought the handout to our attention, said by email: No one in their right mind should believe AISD can borrow $1 billion plus interest and not have a property tax increase as a result. When we asked, David Butts, a consultant to the PAC, told us by phone the group based its rate claim on district presentations. Butts said: Weve never said that you wouldnt pay higher taxes, in that barring an economic recession, escalating local property values stand to drive up how much the district reaps--without the district needing a rate bump. Property taxes are tied to assessed property values which in Austin (like other prosperous cities) lately spiral nearly every year. In this fact-check, well share assumptions behind the no-hike scenario and unpack estimates of how much money the proposed bonds would likely cost homeowners in increased tax bills. Its also worth noting the speculative quality of tax predictions. To our inquiry, Roger Falk of theTravis County Taxpayers Union, which opposes the proposition, questioned anyones ability to fact-check rate-related claims because, he said by phone, tax effects depend on unknowns including whether and how much total appraised property values change and if the districts intended debt repayment schedules and interest rates bear out. You cannot assume its a sunny day every day, Falk said. Its going to rain sometime. Austin districts assumptions District leaders have said that presuming total assessed property values continue to increase and also that the district repays more than half the proposed debt within a decade, the school board will be spared from considering an increase in the districts total tax rate of $1.192 per $100 valuation--the bulk of which covers day-to-day maintenance and operations. A September 2017Austin American-Statesmannews storyelaborated: The district points to its last bond election $392 million approved by voters in 2013 as an example of how it can tamp down the impact on property tax bills. Those bonds were expected to raise the tax rate by 3 cents, or about $38.40 a year to the property tax bill for a $200,000 home. But instead, the story said, the district, buoyed by increasing property values, lowered the tax rate by 5 cents per $100 of a homes assessed value. Homeowners are still paying more, of course, because property values in Austin have shot up 12 percent a year, on average, for the past five years. Tiffany Young, a district spokeswoman, emailed us the districts August 2017tax capacity analysisof the proposed bond costs, which included a summary of annual changes--of late 11-percent-plus annual increases--in total assessed property valuations in the district from 2008 through 2017:           SOURCE:Document showing tax capacity analysis of proposed bond debt, Austin Independent School District, Aug. 10, 2017 (received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, Sept. 26, 2017) That news story noted that the districts payback plan for the proposed bond package assumes an annual increase in total assessed property values of 7 percent in the first two years and 1.5 percent for each subsequent year. Property values actually have a 10-year average growth rate of nearly 8 percent, the story said. School leaders advised that if theres a flattening in property-value increases, the district could tap $46 million in reserves, or savings, to make up for lost revenue. Also, the story quoted Ellen Wood, who chairs the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerces board of directors, calling district assumptions behind no tax-rate hike prediction conservative and appropriate. By phone, Wood told us chamber members based that judgment on talks with the districts chief financial officer, Nicole Conley Johnson, and a firm advising the district on the proposed issuance. To our inquiries, Conley Johnson reaffirmed the districts conclusion that the proposed bonds can be paid off without a tax-rate hike. In fact, Conley Johnson said by phone, she expects the district to land interest rates perhaps 2 percentage points less than the 5 percent rate assumed in its modeling, a decrease that would reduce repayment costs. Noting increased assessed property valuations in recent years, Conley Johnson also said its reasonable to expect assessed values to surge more each year than the 1.5 percent rate assumed in the modeling past the first couple years. If the proposition fails at the polls, Conley Johnson confirmed,the school board could reduce the debt portionof the district tax rate in 2021-22 by $0.0297 per $100 valuation to $0.0833 with additional reductions doable most subsequent years through 2039-40--though that scenario depends, perhaps improbably, on no additional costs accumulating in the intervening years. If the proposition passes, Conley Johnson said, in 2022, the district will need some $35.5 million to pay incremental costs on the proposed bonds. An estimated $35.5 million would be raised by from that $0.0297 per $100 valuation in tax rate, the district projects. Worst-case scenarios? We separately asked Conley Johnson andChris Allenof First Southwest, the firm hired by the district as financial advisers on the proposition, to lay out a worst-case scenario that might cause district officials to recommend a rate increase after all. Youd have to have a major economic downturn, Allen said by phone. Youd have to have the housing market plummet. Allen, referring to the districts assumed 7 percent increases in total assessed valuations in both 2019 and 2020, said: I think the 7 percent is conservative. If you look around, there are cranes everywhere. The housing and commercial market is on fire. Conley Johnson said by email: We estimate that if total assessed valuation growth stayed flat for the next 8 years or there was a cumulative decline in AV of 20%, we would need to consider increasing the tax rate. Of course. she said, these events would buck historical trends of the last 10 years where there was only year that AV declined, in 2011 due to the national recession--arguably the worst in history. Even still, there was subsequent growth thereafter and the decline was made-up after two years and growth doubled after that. Falk, the proposition foe, questioned the assumption that the district can repay the bonds at a 5 percent interest rate past this next year. Theres no science--no way to know--past one year, Falk said. Falk called the assumed annual increases in total property valuations a best guess. We also askedCharles Gilliland, a land-market expert at Texas A&M University, to evaluate the no-rate-increase claim. Gilliland said by phone the districts post-2020 assumption that total assessed property values will increase 1.5 percent annually seems pretty conservative. The rest of the story is its not going to be a nice steady increase, Gilliland said. There are going to be ups and downs. Generally, Gilliland said by email: Without exhaustive historical studies of the parameters of their model and an examination of the operating conditions of the district, I have no evidence to cast doubt on the assumptions underlying the districts analysis. Costs to taxpayers Falk called the tax-rate claim by itself a head fake intended to dupe voters into overlooking that each taxpayer would be paying more dollars to cover bond repayments. He also emailed us thetaxpayer groups analysis, which provides estimated effects on property tax bills by assuming that  total assessed valuations within district boundaries wont go up or down. Then again, the district has acknowledged that property owners will pay more in taxes to pay debt service on the bonds, if approved. A June 2017American-Statesmannews storyon school board members voting to place the proposition before voters initially noted that district officials said the tax rate would remain flat at $1.192 per $100 of assessed property value, with $1.079 designated for operations and $0.113 of the rate going toward repaying debt issued to fund capital improvements. Still: For the owner of the districts average taxable value home of $355,947, the school tax bills would total nearly $4,243. As properties increase in value, the story said, that same tax rate would lead to increasingly higher tax bills. District web pages devoted to the proposition similarly indicate property owners will likely face increases in what the district bills. We initially spotted no estimates of how much more, but estimates were provided when we asked. Lets cover those web posts, then turn to what the district gave us. Heres a question on the districts main FAQ section about the proposition: I've heard AISD say this bond will not raise my property tax rate. How is that possible? The 202-word reply stresses the districts plan not to issue the sought debt all at once plus plans to draw on other funds; it doesnt concede additional direct-to-taxpayer bond costs. We saw this question on a separate districtFinance FAQ web pageabout the proposition: So does this mean that I wont have an increase in my tax bill? The districts reply opens, No. That reply otherwise says higher taxes depend on the appraised value of taxable property, which is determined by the Travis Central Appraisal District, not AISD. An increase or decrease in taxable property value, even with no change in the tax rate, would result in an increase or decrease in the actual amount of taxes paid. The reply goes on to note that residents who qualify for Travis Countys over-65 homestead exemption wouldnt pay more in school taxes. Moreover, the reply continues, other governing entities levy property taxes including the city of Austin, Travis County, the Austin Community College District and the Travis County Health Care District. The rates for each entity are set annually by the elected or governing officials, the district says. The rate for each of the taxing entities is then applied to your home value, it says. We also noticed the last, 18th question on the districts main FAQ page for the proposition: What's the bottom line, the one thing you want voters to know? The districts reply: AISD needs to address facility deficiencies and is committed to creating 21st-century learning spaces for our students. We can do so without a tax rate increase. Conley Johnson told us that in 2021-22 (the third year of the district starting to sell and repay the bond debt being presented to voters), the cost to taxpayers of the new debt would range from $29.70 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $100,000 up to $297 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $1 million.See the districts full chart here. According to what Conley Johnson described as the districts worst-case modeling of the proposed bonds effect on taxes, the owner of an Austin homestead at theaverage 2017-18 assessed value($332,103) would see the debt portion of her or his district tax bill increase from $375 in 2017-18 to $484 in 2027-28--driven by expected bumps in assessed property values. Absent the sought bonds or other approved debt, this modeling indicates, the 2027-28 costs to such a homeowner for district debt would total $250.57. An owner of a homestead at the 2017-18median value($262,282) would face $382.75 in district debt-tied taxes in 2027-28--up from $296 in 2017-18 and greater than the $197.89 in such taxes the homeowner would face if the district doesnt issue additional debt. Theres more: As we made our inquiries, the district posted adocumentestimating each homesteading homeowners future tax payments to the district related to paying off the proposed bonds. Upshot: Starting in 2022, some $0.0297 per $100 valuation of the districts tax rate would generate sufficient revenue to pay debt service on the sought bonds, the document says. The share of the districts tax rate needed to pay that debt service will escalate in subsequent years, the document says, with that share reaching its maximum of $0.0530 per $100 valuation as of 2029. According to the document, the district estimates the dollar costs in annual taxes on the median-value homestead in the district--which in 2017 had an appraised value of $287,282--to be $77.90 in 2022 and $139.01 in 2029. At the upper end, the estimated annual dollar costs due to debt service on the proposed bonds to a homestead appraised at $1 million in 2017 is shown as $289.58 in 2022, $516.75 in 2029. Our ruling The PAC said the proposed Austin school district bonds will require no tax rate increase. Missing from this claim: Individual homeowners are expected to pay more in property taxes even if the tax rate remains the same, which looks likely thanks to rising property valuations in a hot real-estate market. We rate this statement, which lacks the important clarification that only the tax rate isnt expected to rise, Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUEThe statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. 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 On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill Claim:  Marines surreptitiously failed to observe the proper protocol in saluting President Clinton all throughout his eight years in office.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Military courtesy change I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W. leaving HM-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and as he walked away, the marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's back . . . something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency.  The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine orderly to the ship's Captain always faced him, no matter hisdirection of movement, to be ready to receive an order.  Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone? . . . And for eight years, they did. Origins:  According to this Internet-circulated piece, to a man, Marines decided they didn't respect President Clinton the minute he took office, and so for eight years all of them declined to observe proper protocol in his presence.  Moreover, no officer ever objected to this behavior, and not one member of the Presidential entourage ever noticed or reported it. The best way to answer this one would be to ask a Marine.  So we did: If the question is "Did the Marines who greeted the President willfully show disrespect by failing to execute a   "facing" movement after the salute?" the answer is no.  Proper protocol is for the Marine to snap a salute to the President. The President may or may not return the salute at his discretion. If the President returns the salute, the Marine immediately "cuts" or "posts" by bringing his arm sharply down to his side from the salute and remaining at a position of attention. If the President does not return the salute, the Marine will wait until the President passes him, then he will cut and remain at a position of attention. This is the protocol when greeting a senior officer, including the President.  With the new Presidency comes a changing of the Presidential Detail. The new command of the Presidential Detail may have chosen to add a facing movement to the protocol. This is at the complete discretion of the command. A Marine does not have the luxury of choosing whether or not he follows proper protocol. He is given an order and he follows it to the letter. If the order does not include a facing movement, the facing movement will not occur. If the order includes a facing movent, the facing movement occurs. It is that simple. Whether or not this movement becomes a standard part of protocol remains to be seen.  Marines do not act as individuals, we act as a team. Marines follow procedure and protocol. The Marines you saw followed their orders. That is a Marine. This piece was also refuted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Snappy little story. It has only two problems:   "It's absolutely false," says Staff Sgt. Keith Milks of the public affairs office at Marine Corps headquarters.   If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter "are chosen for their professionalism." In a phone interview, Milks said crew members of HM-1 - Marine One, the presidential helicopter - had followed the same protocol with Clinton that they used for all presidents, to wit:  The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the debarking president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away," Milks said. Even if one dislikes the man who is currently President, protocol dictates that he be shown the proper respect in order not to dishonor the office of President of the United States. Marines know that as well as anyone.  Additional information:        Presidential Tradition   (RonaldReagan.com)   Last updated:  27 January 2007    Sources:   Levins, Harry.  "Don't Believe Your E-Mail: The Marines Didn't Show More Respect to Bush Than Clinton."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  10 March 2001  (p. 2). On October 9th, 2016, WikiLeaks disclosed thousands of e-mails from the personal account of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, also a former counselor to President Barack Obama. Among those files were two e-mails signed by former NASA astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell from the e-mail address terribillionairs@aol.com. The first message, dated 18 January 2015, read: message Subject: email for John Podesta (c/o Eryn) from Edgar Mitchel re meeting ASAP Dear John, As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vaticans awareness of ETI [extraterrestrial intelligence]. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russias extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obamas Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryns assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.  Best regards,Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon The second message, dated 18 August 2015, included a brief introduction and a series of links to articles that primarily discussed the militarization of space. It bore the same signature as the first e-mail: message Subject: email for John Podesta c/o Eryn re Space Treaty (attached) Dear John,  Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk. Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. The following information in italics was shared with me by my colleague Carol Rosin, who worked closely for several years with Wernher von Braun before his death. Carol and I have worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, attached for your convenience. Best regards,Edgar Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon Before diving into the content of these two e-mails, we should identify the players involved. Dr. Edgar Mitchell (who passed away in 2016) was a NASA astronaut who traveled to (and walked on) the moon as part of the Apollo 14 mission in 1971. A Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, he once completed a record-breaking nine-hour, 24-minute EVA on the surface of the moon. In addition to his distinguished scientific career with NASA, he was a strong believer in metaphysical phenomena. He claimed, for example, that a Toronto-based healer named Adam Dreamhealer had cured him of kidney cancer remotely while the two men were separated by thousands of miles. He also was a strong believer in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life and claimed Earth had frequently been visited by aliens. Among the many times he made these assertions was in a 2009 interview with the Guardian: recipient record-breaking Adam Dreamhealer interview "We are being visited," [Mitchell] said. "It is now time to put away this embargo of truth about the alien presence. I call upon our government to open up ... and become a part of this planetary community that is now trying to take our proper role as a spacefaring civilisation." Though Mitchell signed the messages, the e-mail address from which they originated belonged to Terri Mansfield (Mitchells Catholic colleague), who runs a nonprofit that focuses on metaphysical concepts including consciousness, god, extraterrestrial intelligence, and the development of technology that could harness zero point energy (a pseudoscientific concept discussed below). belonged nonprofit Carol Rosin, whom Mitchell mentions as having helped to collect the links listed in the second e-mail, states on her web site that she is the founder of the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space. On the same site, she describes her role as advis[ing] decision makers and others about applications of technology and information services for human needs, environment, new energy, and peace and security, health and prosperity for all on earth and in space. web site Mansfield and Rosin's connection to Mitchell does not necessarily imply influence or authorship of these emails, as the content is consistent with causes he championed. In fact, Rebecca Hardcastle Wright, a former employee of Mitchell's, wrote a post attesting to their authenticity, confirming that a Skype meeting with Podesta had been requested by Mitchell but never ended up taking place. former employee post  As far as the content of the e-mails, there are two (very) loosely connected threads at play. The more straightforward thread (and what ultimately seems to be the primary premise for a Skype meeting, based on the subject lines) is the discussion of adding the United States as a signatory to an amended version of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, an international agreement dating back to the 1960s that prevents governments, essentially, from putting nukes or weapons of mass destruction in orbit or from putting military bases on the moon or on other objects in space. agreement Mitchell and Rosin were arguing for the United States to sign onto an even more restrictive treaty originally proposed  by China and Russia in 2008, which would ban weapons in space outright. The list of links provided by Rosin (primarily news articles and blog posts) all related to international space collaboration and various warnings about countries currently involved in, or planning to be involved in, putting weapons in space. treaty Its the material in the first e-mail that is a bit more convoluted. That missive opens with an urgent request to discuss zero point energy and disclosure. Disclosure refers to the release of any and all information the U.S. government might have on UFOs. This is, in fact, a topic for which John Podesta openly advocated well before any WikiLeaks referenced the subject, as the Washington Post reported in April of 2016: reported "In 2002," [Leslie] Kean and co-author [of UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record] Ralph Blumenthal wrote, "Podesta began publicly supporting what became a landmark Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Freedom of Information, an independent advocacy group. NASA had been stonewalling and refusing to release its records concerning a significant 1965 UFO incident in Kecksburg, PA." Documents were released, but they "did not include one iota of information relating to the Kecksburg case, despite an earnest and thorough effort by NASA staff." It's apparently those documents to which Podesta was referring when, after a brief stint working in the Obama White House, he tweeted that failing to secure the release of UFO files was his "biggest failure of 2014." Zero point energy is a concept in quantum physics that refers to the amount of energy a given quantum system has at its lowest quantum state or ground state. The fact that systems at this zero point actually still possess some energy has lead to myriad science fiction or pseudoscientific claims of being able to tap into that energy to achieve things currently known to be physically impossible. concept Mitchell ran a company, listed in his email signature, called Quantrek, which sought, among other things, to harness this zero point energy, according to Terri Mansfield (the woman from whom the e-mails to Podesta originated): [Mitchell] and his science team researched the application of the quantum hologram as well as zero point energy, the most powerful, cleanest, cheapest, safest, most ubiquitous form of energy for the planet. ZPE will power cars, trains, planes, sea-going vessels, space ships, as well as our homes and buildings. The connection between the zero point energy topic and the space treaty, while not completely articulated in the e-mails, appears to be based on Mansfields (and presumably Mitchells) belief that as a species humans need to show our obedience to God and embrace extraterrestrial beings by abandoning free will and embracing peace, at which point the aliens will allow us to understand and implement zero point energy. Mansfield explains that connection on her web site: connection The ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) with whom Suzanne and Terri work are peaceful, nonviolent and obedient to God. They are NOT from our universe but from a CONTIGUOUS universe. They are the highest form of intelligence working directly with God. Their purpose is to assist us humans who are eager to bring powerful, safe, clean, cheap, sustainable, ubiquitous, infinite ZERO POINT ENERGY application as THE energy source to our viable Earth. This ZPE energy is centered on the Tau neutrino. When ETI want to make themselves known, they do so with specific colors, sound, touch, scent, taste and manipulation of matter. Examples abound. They frequently turn on lights in our homes when they want our attention. ETI want only what is best for humanity to evolve spiritually, demand obedience given by free will choice, respond with compassion and / or justice, when required. The implication appears to be that extraterrestrials are willing to help us with our zero point energy problems so long as we can demonstrate our peaceful nature. This is presumably what Mitchell is referring to in the second e-mail when he wrote: Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. Though we cannot say for certain, it appears likely that the reference to God and the Vatican stems from Mansfield's belief system revolving around obedience to God and her Catholicism. Ultimately, though, what has emerged from these messages is a picture of a decorated astronaut with a history of eccentric views attempting, unsuccessfully, to set up a meeting with a high ranking and potentially sympathetic government official with either the help of (or influence from) both a metaphysicist and an advocate for a demilitarized space. In Mitchells and Mansfield's view, there is a straight line connection between signing a stronger space treaty and receiving information from aliens about how to create a form of energy that will save our civilization. What does not emerge, however, is any evidence supporting the quasi-scientific claims made by Mitchell or Mansfield, or that the United States Government is privy to any information regarding those claims. On 2 June 2015, New York firefighter Michael O'Connell took to Facebook to ask social media users for help in locating a helmet that had been stolen from his house a few years prior. O'Connell posted a photograph of his son with the helmet and explained that he had worn it throughout his FDNY career, including during 9/11 and its aftermath: Facebook   This was my FDNY helmet I wore my entire career including 9/11/01. It was stolen from my home a while back. I know it's a long shot but if enough people share maybe it turns up or is sent back so I can keep it in my family! Thanks! The NYC Wire Fire Facebook page helped spread O'Connell's message by resharing his post with the caption, "In case anyone comes across this ... maybe the thief is stupid enough to try to sell on eBay." Within a week, the message reportedly reached more than 8 million people and had been reshared hundreds of thousands of times. Unfortunately, despite the wide dissemination of this Facebook post, it did not result in the return of O'Connell's FDNY helmet. Facebook reportedly AM New York reported on 24 June 2015, a few weeks after the Facebook post went viral, that while O'Connell had not been reunited with his helmet, he did receive an outpouring of support from the community and two replica helmets from "good Samaritans hoping to sooth the sting" of his loss: reported Retired firefighter Michael O'Connell's social media campaign to retrieve his stolen FDNY helmet has gotten him the next best thing -- two replicas thanks to some good Samaritans. "There are still amazing people in this world!," O'Connell said. O'Connell, 39, recently turned to Facebook to track down the significant memento that he wore at Ground Zero following 9/11 and hoped to leave to his three children. What came back instead were two painstakingly created replica helmets from good Samaritans hoping to soothe the sting of his loss and an avalanche of human kindness and compassion. "I'm taking the good out of this story, not the bad," said O'Connell, who was forced to retire from the FDNY after being diagnosed with sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease that attacks the lungs and lymphatic system, in 2007. "We live in an amazing world. So many people are willing to help. I hope people recognize this more than all the hate out there," he said. Although this FDNY firefighter's message was originally posted in June 2015, social media users have continued to share his plea on Facebook over the ensuing years. In April 2019, for example, a screenshot of O'Connell's message that was posted by the "Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department" racked up more than 600,000 shares. Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department When viewers learned that this message was nearly four years old by the time they encountered it in April 2019, they were left wondering if O'Connell had ever been reunited with his firefighter helmet. Unfortunately, that's not the case. O'Connell told us in April 2019: "I appreciate everyones support in this matter. Unfortunately, my helmet was never returned! Hoping that it will make its way back home one day as I am a retired FF who has fallen sick to my work on September 11th and this was the helmet that I wore that day and throughout my career!" Stepansky, Joseph.  "FDNY Firefighter's Helmet Worn During 9/11 Stolen from Long Island Home."
  New York Daily Post.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Firefighter Michael O'Connell Searching for 9/11 Helmet."
  AM New York.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Smoke Eater Michael O'Connell Receives Two Helmets for the One He Lost."
  AM New York.  24 June 2015. On June 14, 2022, a tweet went viral that supposedly showed two cans of Arizona Iced Tea labeled with different prices. The tweet suggested that it was time to start "panicking" and insinuated that rising inflation rates had resulted in the cost of cans of Arizona Iced Tea rising from $0.99 to $1.29.  tweet went viral rising inflation rates  While this photograph is genuine, the cost of Arizona Iced Tea did not increase from $0.99 to $1.29. The picture actually shows the price for cans of iced tea in different countries. The can on the left shows the cost of Arizona Iced Tea in USD, and the can on the right shows the cost of this beverage in CAD (Canadian dollars).  Arizona Iced Tea responded to the rumor on social media, writing that there was no need to panic and that the cost of their beverage is still $0.99 in the United States.   This was not the first time this rumor has spread on social media. The same picture racked up more than 140,000 likes in January 2021 when it was shared with the caption: "If this world is coming, I dont want to live in it." Arizona Iced Tea also responded to that viral tweet:  In April 2022, Don Vultaggio, the co-founder of Arizona Beverage Company, told the Los Angeles Times that he was "committed to that 99-cent price." Vultaggio said: Im committed to that 99-cent price  when things go against you, you tighten your belt. I dont want to do what the bread guys and the gas guys and everybody else are doing. Consumers dont need another price increase from a guy like me. No, AriZona Iced Tea Hasnt Raised the Price of Its 99-Cent Can to $1.29. Wtsp.Com, 6 June 2022, https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/verify/money-verify/arizona-iced-tea-price-not-raised-from-99-cents/536-06ac8786-911b-436b-b640-48a013d06f72. Twitter, et al. As Inflation Soars, How Is AriZona Iced Tea Still 99 Cents? Los Angeles Times, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-12/az-iced-tea-inflation-99-cents. Claim:  Letter from a disabled veteran criticizes George Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq War. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Was this letter really written by a dying veteran?  DYING VET'S 'F*CK YOU' LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH & DICK CHENEY NEEDS TO BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran To: George W. Bush and Dick CheneyFrom: Tomas Young I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care. I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all  the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief. I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans  my fellow veterans  whose future you stole. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Tomas Young is a disabled veteran who enlisted in the military after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001 and was severely wounded in Iraq in 2004; he subsequently became an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and was featured in the 2007 documentary film Body of War: Body of War Mr. Young's travails began three days after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The 22-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., was watching a speech on TV by President Bush who was atop the rubble at the World Trade Center. The president issued a rallying cry, saying, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon." Motivated to help his country, Mr. Young enlisted in the Army and was sent to Iraq. After just five days, he was shot by a sniper while riding in an unarmored, open truck. A bullet tore through his spine and he was left permanently paralyzed from the chest down. Body of War follows Mr. Young's life after he returns home. Facing struggles with basic bodily functions and neglectful VA medical care that provided him with bottles of pills and limited rehabilitation services, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and became a nationally recognized anti-war activist. With his fresh-faced good looks and upbeat humor, Mr. Young attracted a large following at protests and peace rallies, where Gold Star mothers who lost their sons in combat were comforted just to touch him. After a February 2013 screening of that film, Young told the audience via Skype that he planned to end his life in the near future: A screening of the documentary Body of War came to a startling conclusion when the films star told a stunned audience that he was going to end his life. Appearing with his wife Claudia via Skype on a large projection screen, Mr. Young spoke slowly and at times with difficulty. He said on April 20, the date of the couples first wedding anniversary, he intends to wean himself off food, stop taking life-extendingmedications, "and one day go away." He said he will continue to take medication for pain only. It was important, Mr. Young said, for him to be alert and aware when he died. "Its time," he said. His wife said she supported his decision because he "goes through the gauntlet" every day. "We have talked about where he is at and hes exhausted," she said. The audience was transfixed by Mr. Youngs announcement. Wilton actor Charles Grodin and others called Mr. Young "courageous" and "brave." Mr. Young was commended for taking control over the only part of his life he still had any control over. Others condemned the VA medical system for taking such poor care of returning soldiers, and the politicians who appeared to "rubber stamp" the Iraq War. In a March 2013 interview with Chris Hedges, Young provided more detail about his decision to end his life: interview I had been toying with the idea of suicide for a long time because I had become helpless. I couldn't dress myself. People have to help me with the most rudimentary of things. I decided I did not want to go through life like that anymore. The pain, the frustration ... I felt at the end of my rope. I made the decision to go on hospice care, to stop feeding and fade away. This way, instead of committing the conventional suicide and I am out of the picture, people have a way to stop by or call and say their goodbyes. I felt this was a fairer way to treat people than to just go out with a note. After the anoxic brain injury in 2008  I lost a lot of dexterity and strength in my upper body. So I wouldnt be able to shoot myself or even open the pill bottle to give myself an overdose. The only way I could think of doing it was to have Claudia open the pill bottle for me, but I didn't want her implicated. On 18 March 2013, in conjunction with the tenth anniversary of beginning of the Iraq War, Tomas Young  submitted a letter (referenced above) that was published on the truthdig web site.  Titled "The Last Letter" and subtitled "A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran," the letter criticized the former president and vice president for sending "hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage." truthdig However, in December 2013, several months after penning "The Last Letter," Young told an NPR interviewer that he had changed his mind about his decision to end his life, saying: "I just came to the conclusion that I wanted some more time with my wife. And I decided that I really don't have the chutzpah to go ahead and do away with myself. If you're in life and you start to think things are a little too rough to handle, just think of me and what I go through, and you realize that hey, I don't have it so bad." Tomas Young passed away on 10 November 2014.  His mother attributed the cause of his death to "his body just wore out."    Last updated:  7 September 2015    Hedges, Chris.   "The Crucifixion of Tomas Young."   truthdig.  10 March 2013.    Martin, Douglas.   "Tomas Young, Army Veteran, Dies at 34."   The New York Times.  16 November 2014.    Morris, Frank.   "Injured Veteran Keeps Up His Fight, Deciding to Live."   NPR.  28 December 2013.    Szoldra, Paul.  "Injured Veteran Who Wrote Scathing 'Last Letter' to President Bush Decides to Live On."   Business Insider.  28 December 2013. Houston businessman Farouk Shami, running for governor, turned to his leading Democratic foe on Monday night and leveled a foul charge.In a televised debate, Shami told Bill White, the former Houston mayor: Our city is the third-most toxic city in the United States of America.White didnt take issue with Shamis description, but it was news to us. We decided to check into the Bayou Citys ick ranking.Shamis campaign said the candidate based his statement on a 2009 article in Forbes magazine putting Houston behind only Atlanta and Detroit for toxicity among major U.S. cities.The magazine said it based its rankings of the nations 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the magazine said, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city.Its article states Houston's residents live with with air that's far filthier than it should be.Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, the magazine says, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands-based nonprofit group that studies and promotes sustainable development, is quoted saying Houston has become one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science. He saw that as a boon: The more people understand about it (air quality), the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction.When we reached Lester, he revisited pollution levels reported by industries and posted online by the EPA. In 2007, Harris County industries reported either releasing or disposing of 36.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals, while industries around Detroit in Wayne County nearly matched that dubious achievement, reporting the disposal or release of nearly 30 million pounds of toxic pollutants.Shami correctly referred to a recent national comparison. We rate his statement as True.