SCAM: Luxury RV Giveaway
In July 2016, a scam promising a free "Luxury RV" to people who liked, shared, and commented on a Facebook began to circulate on the social network:  This fraudulent offer echoed similar scams promising free cars from BMW and millions of dollars from musician Eminem. These scams promise luxurious awards for the simple task of liking and sharing a page on Facebook, and since many users see this as a "low risk, high reward" situation, these pages often accomplish their goals of going viral. However, spreading these hoaxes actually has a detrimental effect on social media and can expose people to more fraudulent activity: BMW Eminem fraudulent But why shouldn't you click or share? Where's the harm in it? One reason is "like-farming." Facebook's algorithms in particular emphasize popular content, and therefore gathering "likes" and "shares" receives a high premium. Sometimes, it's just an annoyance  maybe that kid really does want a hundred thousand "likes" so that a Victoria's Secret model will go to a school dance with him, so he's inundating people with appeals (although that's doubtful at best)  but more often, the intent is scammy. Like-farmers will gather clicks, which denote popularity, then scrub the original content and replace it with something else (usually a scammy ad of some sort) to bypass Facebook constraints. Facebook has moved to quash this behavior by adjusting their algorithms, but of course, some scammers' efforts always get by the online gatekeepers. efforts In addition to tell-tale signs of "Like Farming," there are several other ways to tell that this "Luxury RV" page is a hoax. First, while this message purportedly comes from a business that has been operating for 50 years, their Facebook page was only established on 21 July 2016. Second, the Facebook page claims that it represents Major RV, a company based out of California, but lists its location as Eving, Germany. The lack of contact information on the Facebook page is also suspect:   Major RV caught wind of the scam and posted on their Facebook page to warn consumers the offer was fake: Facebook So [we] were hacked by Luxury RV. There is no giveaway at Major RV in Hesperia, Ca sorry for the inconvenience.
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 After a months-long political debate over how to address America's pandemic-stricken economy and just 13 days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office announced she and U.S. President Donald Trump's top emissary, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, were inching toward an agreement on a new economic stimulus package. "Both sides are serious about finding a compromise," tweeted Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, on Oct. 20. The announcement came after repeated claims by Trump that Pelosi was the sole roadblock in his administration's plans to spend about $1.8 trillion on unemployment benefits, schools, and other initiatives  adding to $3 trillion in emergency relief that the federal government approved in spring 2020. In a nationally televised town hall on Oct. 15, for instance, Trump said of Pelosi: "We are ready to sign and pass stimulus, but shes got to approve it," he said. "Shes penalizing our people. Im ready to sign a big, beautiful stimulus."   Days later, while speaking to a Milwaukee news reporter, Trump suggested that Pelosi, who was running a reelection campaign to represent California's 12th Congressional District, was not negotiating in good faith and purposefully delaying a consensus until after the Nov. 3 election. That way, in theory, she and Democrats could restart stimulus talks with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in the White House. "She thinks it's good politically for her not to approve it," Trump said. In an interview with Bloomberg, Pelosi denied that accusation by the president and his supporters and said she would not be negotiating with the White House if she did not want an agreement. Nonetheless, a closer look at the stimulus negotiations showed a more complex debate. It was not just Pelosi with whom the White House needed reconciliation to pass COVID-19 economic relief in fall 2020 as the president alleged. Here's what was true: Members of Congress and the White House reached an impasse over COVID-19 emergency spending in fall 2020. Mnuchin and Pelosi had intermittently negotiated terms of a comprehensive relief package since August, and the Democrat-led House approved a package totaling about $2.2 trillion concurrently. Weeks later, as the election crept closer, Trump said in media interviews that he would sign a package that was greater than House Democrats' proposal, even though key Republicans wanted him to go the opposite direction in negotiating. "I would rather go bigger than that [$2.2 trillion] number, but we'll see," he said on Fox & Friends. "[Pelosi] doesn't want to do anything until after the election, because she thinks it helps her. I actually think it helps us because everyone knows she's the one who's breaking up the deal." Fox & Friends All of that said, the Democrat-approved plan overlapped in some areas with the White House's proposal to help small businesses and pay each eligible U.S. citizen a one-time $1,200 check. But this was key: Trump's GOP allies in the Senate were skeptical of any proposal greater than $1 trillion. For months, they had debated economic stimulus measures smaller than the White House's initial proposal of about $1.6 trillion, which later grew to $1.8 trillion before Trump said he wanted to spend more than Democrats. Reuters reported: "Senate Republicans have repeatedly stated their opposition to additional COVID-19 relief spending near the $2 trillion mark and have focused instead on smaller initiatives." Reuters reported The Republicans were focusing on one-off initiatives to help businesses and families instead of a comprehensive spending bill. They supported one measure in particular that totaled about $650 billion in emergency economic relief, or about one-third the amount of Trump's proposal. In other words, the disagreement over funding was not along party lines, with Senate Republicans taking Trump's side and Pelosi leading an oppositional force, like most political battles over Trump's first term. Rather, key Republicans were skeptical of a relief package greater than $1 trillion and had not expressed support for the White House's proposal. As proof of that lack of enthusiasm for Trump's COVID-19 spending plan, the leading GOP vote-counter, Sen. John Thune, told reporters on Oct. 19 that "itd be hard" to find the necessary Republican support to pass the $1.8 trillion package.  Additionally, multiple news reports said McConnell told Senate Republicans the following day that he had advised the White House against making any deal with Pelosi before the election  significant evidence that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to a compromise. The New York Times reported: multiple The New York Times Mr. McConnells counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on Mr. Trumps increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3. It underscored the divisions within the party that have long hampered a compromise. Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Mr. Trump and his team are too eager to reach a multitrillion-dollar agreement and are conceding far too much to the Democrats. Republicans fear that scenario would force their colleagues up for re-election into a difficult choice of defying the president or alienating their fiscally conservative base by embracing the big-spending bill he has demanded. The Washington Post added: added Many Senate Republicans oppose a massive new spending bill and McConnell is not eager to hold a vote that would divide his conference just before the election, when most Senate Republicans want attention focused on the Barrett nomination. [...] McConnells remarks Tuesday indicate that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin do manage to reach a deal, any vote in the Senate would wait until after the election. If Democrats win a number of seats in the November elections, they could seize control of the Senate beginning in January. Nonetheless, if or when Pelosi and Mnuchin reached an agreement, Trump suggested on multiple occasions without evidence that he could convince naysayers to agree to whatever he wanted. "He'll be on board if something comes," Trump said of McConnell's reluctance in the Fox News interview. "Not every Republican agrees with me, but they will." Fox News interview The time window for an agreement before the Nov. 3 election was narrowing as of this report. Hammill, the spokesman for Pelosi, on Oct. 20 tweeted that Mnuchin and Pelosi had a 45-minute conversation earlier in the day that showed they were "serious about finding a compromise" and moving closer to an agreement in the coming days or weeks with the help of congressional committee chairs.   In sum, considering McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, had reportedly told the White House to not make a deal with Pelosi  proof that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to an agreement  as well as a comment by another Senate Republican that "it'd be hard" to rally his colleagues around Trump's plan for emergency economic spending, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. Factba.se. "Interview: Charles Benson of WTMJ4 Milwaukee Interviews Donald Trump - October 17, 2020."
  Accessed 20 October 2020. Rev. "Donald Trump NBC Town Hall Transcript October 15."
  Accessed 20 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom.  "Dear Colleague: Update on Effort to Reach Coronavirus Relief Agreement Before Election."
  18 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom.  "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos."
  18 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom.  "Dear Colleague on Urgency to Pass Relief Bill with Values and Common Sense."
  15 October 2020.  Nancy Pelosi Newsroom.  "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's The ReidOut with Joy Reid."
 19 October 2020. Taylor, Andrew.  "Deadline Looms, But COVID Relief Deal May Be Far Off."
 The Associated Press.  20 October 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph.  "Senate Republicans Are Pouring Cold Water on Approving A Multi-Trillion Dollar Stimulus Deal As Trump Pushes For A Larger Relief Package Than Democrats."
 Business Insider.  20 October 2020. Henney, Megan.  "Trump Says He Want A Bigger Coronavirus Relief Package Than Pelosi's $2.2T Proposal."
 FOXBusiness.  20 October 2020. Stein, Jeff, et. al.  "Trump Makes $1.8 Trillion Economic Relief Offer, But Deal With Pelosi Remains Elusive."
  The Washington Post.   9 October 2020. Cornwell, Susan.  "Trump Pushes For Major COVID-19 Deal Over Senate Republican Objections."
 Reuters.  20 October 2020. House, Billy, et. al.  "Pelosi Mnuchin Narrowing Gap on Stimulus, to Talk Again Tuesday."
 Bloomberg.  19 October 2020. Fandos, Nicholas. "McConnell Advises White house Not to Strike Pre-Electino Stimulus Deal With Pelosi."
 The New York Times. 20 October 2020. Stein, Jeff, and Werner, Erica. "McConnell Warns White House Against Making Stimulus Deal Before Election, Sources Say."
 The Washington Post.  20 October 2020. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking in Austin, bemoaned widening income differences between the countrys very rich and the rest of us. And in his remarks at aSouth Austin union hall, the Vermont independentmulling a runfor the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination also warned about American failures to save money. Heres something not talked about, something that can make us all very, very nervous, Sanders said. Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. And you know what that means and you know why people are so stressed out? If you have less than $10,000, he said, that means an automobile accident, a divorce, a serious illness, a crisis of one kind or another can drive you into bankruptcy and financial disaster. Is he right that half of us have less than $10K in savings? Sanders backup To our inquiry, a Sanders spokesman, Jeff Franks, said by email that Sanders relied on an April 2014USA Todaynews storyquoting a survey indicating 52 percent of U.S. workers had said they had less than $10,000 in total savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement. It did not include their homes or defined benefit plans, such as traditional pensions that could be used for retirement Specifically, the story said, 36 percent of workers said they had less than $1,000 in such savings and investments with another 16 percent of workers reporting $1,000 to $9,999 in such savings and investments. Those results came from a telephone survey of 1,000 workers and 501 retirees by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald and Associates. Next, we spotted a chart on the institutes website drawn from the same 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey. The 52 percent of workers reporting less than $10,000 in savings and investments in 2014 is up from 39 percent in 2009, the chart shows. Of course, workers isnt all of us. We called the Washington, D.C.-based institute,which saysit was founded in 1978 to deliver unbiased information on employee benefit plans so that decisions affecting the system may be made based on verifiable facts. By phone, researcher Craig Copeland told us that overall, 51 percent of survey respondents, meaning retirees and others, had less than $10,000 in financial savings. Also by phone, Ruth Helman of Greenwald and Associates, which helped do the survey, paused at the senators wording. Strictly speaking, their savings account isnt correct. Its total savings wherever it may be, under the mattress or wherever, Helman said. Federal Reserve Bank We wondered if there were other ways of looking at savings. Several experts urged us to contact the Federal Reserve Bank, which conducts a survey focused on consumer finances every three years.Its latest survey, drawing on data collected in 2013, resulted in a chart pointed out by Copeland indicating that the median value of financial savings outside of a pension or home reported by the nearly 95 percent of families who had bank accounts or stocks, bonds and other financial assets that year was $21,200, down from $23,000 in the boards 2010 survey. SOURCE:Report,Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 2014 Copeland said that given that more than 5 percent of families reported no such financial assets, its reasonable to speculate that families overall had median financial savings of less than $20,000. We also asked reserve board officials to analyze the senators savings accounts statement. By phone, William Emmons and Bryan Noeth, both employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, raised questions. For instance, why not count a familys home or pension as part of its savings? Reminder: The institute, with its focus on savings for retirement, set aside these asset categories. Emmons said: People do count on their housing equity, not only in retirement, but before that. Beyond that, the pair said, its not always meaningful to focus on money held in savings accounts, which are a single wealth indicator. A savings account isnt where everybody holds their money, Noeth said. The two said a potentially superior way to gauge how Americans are faring, savings-wise, would be to consider net worth meaning family assets compared to debts. An agency manager, Adriene Dempsey, emailed usa spreadsheetshowing that according to the boards 2013 survey, 26 percent of U.S. families had less than $10,000 in net worth--a tick worse than the 25 percent of families according to its 2010 study. In 2013, half of American families had about $81,500 in net wealth or more, according to the spreadsheet. Total assets for a family include financial assets, such as bank accounts, mutual funds and securities plus tangible assets, including real estate, vehicles and durable goods, according to aFebruary 2015 essayby the St. Louis Fed.Weve elaborated on this here. So by the net-worth metric, more families are better off than if one focused on financial savings alone. We ran this net worth angle past the institutes Coleman, who reminded by email that its survey (relied on by Sanders) took into account financial assets, not just savings accounts. Our ruling Sanders said: Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. Some clarification went missing here: A 2014 survey indicated about half of American adults had less than $10,000 in savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement; those results encompassed more than savings accounts. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In early-to-mid-March 2019, photographs of President Donald Trump and members of his family posing with Li Yang, a political donor and spa entrepreneur, circulated on social media. The images were used to link the Trumps with a sting operation in Florida. link Yang, who posted a widely seen selfie taken at Trump's 2019 Super Bowl party to her Facebook account, once owned what is now the Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was one of 25 men arrested in February 2019, accused of soliciting sex there in a sweeping, human-trafficking sting that targeted that site and others. selfie sting Kraft, a self-described friend of Trump, faces two counts of misdemeanor solicitation, to which he has pleaded not guilty. friend not guilty Yang no longer owns the establishment in which police say Kraft was caught on camera paying for sex. She has not been charged with a crime. camera Nevertheless, the images of Yang, Trump and members of his family were picked up and used to create an inaccurate meme claiming she is the spa's owner, which was shared with the nearly 8 million followers on the Facebook page belonging to Occupy Democrats on 8 March 2019.Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook page sarcastically discourages followers to share the meme, its administrators also added a "correction" in the post above the image: Occupy Democrats   Yang was swept into the lurid story after images of her with Trump and his family members surfaced on her Facebook page, which, as the Miami Herald reported, "raised questions about who can gain access to the president at his resorts and other private businesses, as well at official venues like fundraisers." reported Some news stories linked Yang to the day spa raided by police by describing her as the "founder," although when the site changed ownership in 2012, its name also changed. Yang sold the business, which at the time was called the Tokyo Day Spa, to Hua Zhang, who changed the name of the establishment to Orchids of Asia upon incorporation in 2012, according to Florida state business records. Zhang, 58, has been charged with prostitution-related counts and has pleaded not guilty. As the Associated Press reported: incorporation not guilty Yang, who goes by Cindy, wasnt charged in the multiagency anti-human trafficking operation that resulted in 25 arrests and shut down 10 Asian day spas in south Florida. None of the spas are registered to Yang or her family. She sold the Jupiter spa around 2013 to Hua Zhang, who has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and running a house of prostitution. Yangs family still owns several south Florida spas. The familys Tokyo Day Spa branches have attracted the attention of at least two police agencies, the Herald reported. Yang told the Herald, which published the photo of her with Trump on Friday (March 8), that she and her family havent broken the law. She said she is out of the business, would soon be relocating to Washington and didnt want any negative news media attention. published the photo of her with Trump Occupy Democrats (OD) Co-Founder Omar Rivero told us in an email he felt he had no choice but to leave the meme live with the correction added to the post. Once an image is posted on Facebook, it can't be replaced or edited. If the image were to continue to circulate with the error even after after OD had deleted it from their page, and if Facebook were to flag the image as false, the deletion would result in a penalty for the page.  "Its a really weird thing that doesn't make sense to me either," he explained. "Normally I would just delete it but I can't risk another hit to our reach [due to a Facebook penalty] over a minor mistake." Blaskey, Sarah, etal."Trump Cheered Patriots to Super Bowl Victory With Founder of Spa Where Kraft Was Busted."
Miami Herald.8 March 2019. Greenlee, Will."Details in Spa Sex, Human Trafficking Released; Neighbor Says Case 'Like a Movie.'"
Treasury Coast Newspapers.20 February 2019. Winter, Tom, and Kesslen, Ben."Patriots Owner Robert Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution."
NBC News.22 February 2019. Nehamas, Nicole, etal."Massage Parlor Magnate Helped Steer Chinese to Trump NYC Fundraiser, Attendee Says."
Miami Herald.9 March 2019. Associated Press."Report: Spa Founder Attended Trumps Super Bowl Party."
8 March 2019. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.       Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014 As the Taliban took over Afghanistan, U.S. President Joe Biden pulled American troops out in August 2021, with the last military plane departing at the end of the month, marking the end of a two-decade-long presence in the country.  pulled  Biden has faced plenty of criticism for the rushed departure particularly from right-wing voices, and the internet pulled out an old article he wrote for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), titled "How I Learned to Love the New World Order, to bolster arguments against him. According to numerous posts like this one, the essay was arguing for the destruction of national sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government.  one Some claimed that because of the headline, Biden supported a New World Order, which advocates for one world government. This stems from the New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory, which claims that a secret group of global elites is seeking to establish an all-powerful, authoritarian, one-world government.  New World Order   The essay was indeed published by The Wall Street Journal on April 23, 1992. We found a copy in the archives of the New York Public Library. The full version can be seen below: New York Public Librar   Biden wrote the essay in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed he was in favor of neo-isolationism. To be clear, in Biden's essay, he was not talking about the NWO conspiracy theory. He argued that the Pentagons strategy of making America a Globocop would render it a hollow superpower.  The highlights made in the blog post above about his essay do not support the argument that Biden wants to destroy national sovereignty. In the article Biden argues for Americans to pull back on military intervention and build up economic might: Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt. The essay also addresses Americas role as a Globocop, arguing that Power also emanates from [...] the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout, and not from the barrel of a gun. Biden argues in favor of multilateral military action by breathing life into the U.N. Charter. He envisions "a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action  but with a U.S. veto. He concluded: We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.  The blog post makes another claim: that Biden wrote the WSJ article many years before writing the Patriot Act, a counterterrorism bill that increased surveillance capabilities by U.S. law enforcement after 9/11. This is partially true, because Biden did support the Patriot Act and claimed he was responsible for authoring earlier versions of counterterrorism legislation that featured prominently in it. Biden introduced and authored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which he argued provided one source of inspiration for the 2001 Patriot Act.  counterterrorism claimed In October 2001, he said in a Senate speech supporting the Patriot Act: It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed.  Senate speech The Patriot Act was criticized by civil rights advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who said it turned regular citizens into suspects, and resulted in a loss of privacy. While civil rights experts have criticized his support for the law, that criticism does not suggest that Biden is trying to build a one world government.  American Civil Liberties Union While the WSJ did publish this essay by Biden, the article did not make the arguments that critical blog posts on social media are claiming. As such, we rate this claim as False. Sources: Afghanistan: Last US Military Flight Departs Ending Americas Longest War. BBC News, 31 Aug. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58390085. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "How I Learned to Love the New World Order." Wall Street Journal (1923-), Apr 23, 1992, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.nypl.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/historical-newspapers/how-i-learned-love-new-world-order/docview/135656899/se-2?accountid=35635. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Hsu, Hua. 50 Years of Conspiracy Theories - New World Order -- New York Magazine - Nymag. New York Magazine, https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Senate Approves USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Legislation. https://sgp.fas.org/congress/2001/s102501.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Ungurean, Geri. JOE BIDEN Proclaimed How He Learned to Love the NEW WORLD ORDER in a Wall Street Piece from 1992: Article Is Clearly Shown in This WP Piece. Absolute Truth from the Word of God, 30 Aug. 2021, https://grandmageri422.me/2021/08/30/joe-biden-how-i-learned-to-love-the-new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. In the closing days of the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media users recirculated a photograph playing on campaign-long claims by President Donald Trump and his supporters that Democratic nominee Joe Biden used his political influence while vice president to benefit Burisma, one of Ukraines largest natural gas companies, because Biden's son Hunter was a non-executive director on that company's board. recirculated non-executive director The much-shared photograph purportedly showed Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with the "Ukraine oil exec paying Hunter $50 K a month," thereby supposedly contradicting Joe Biden's claims that he had never spoken to his son about the latter's "overseas business dealings": spoken   Which "Ukraine oil exec" is allegedly pictured isn't specified in the above meme, but neither of the men posing with the Bidens is Burisma CEO Taras Burdeinyi, or former Ukraine Ecology Minister and Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky. Taras Burdeinyi Mykola Zlochevsky In fact, the photograph seen above, taken in the Hamptons in 2014 while Joe Biden was still the U.S. vice president, does not depict the Bidens with any Ukrainian oil executives. It captures the Bidens with Devon Archer, who was a partner with Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz in the investment management firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, and Ralph Pascucci, a New York investment banker. taken Ralph Pascucci Although Archer was, like Hunter Biden, a member of the board of Burisma Holdings, neither Archer nor Pascucci is Ukrainian, and neither of those men is  or was  an "oil exec paying Hunter $50K a month," so this photograph is correctly classified as "Miscaptioned." One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. Claim:  "Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] MAKE THE PIE HIGHERby George W. Bush  I think we all agree, the past is over.This is still a dangerous world.It's a world of madmen and uncertaintyand potential mental losses.  Rarely is the question askedIs our children learning?Will the highways of the Internet become more few?How many hands have I shaked?  They misunderestimate me.I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.  Put food on your family!Knock down the tollbooth!Vulcanize society!Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! Origins:  We certainly didn't need to write a piece to inform the world that, like his father, President George W. Bush is not a strong public speaker.  Particularly when speaking   extemporaneously, he often uses words similar in sound but different in meaning to what he intends tosay (e.g., "vulcanize" for "Balkanize") or uses incorrect forms of words (e.g., "resignate" for "resonate"), garbles familiar phrases by transposing words (e.g., "where wings take dream"), and makes a variety of grammatical mistakes (e.g., "how many hands have I shaked").  The point here was not to rehash the numerous lists of "Bushisms" to be found in a variety of media, but to perform a sort of investigative experiment into the accuracy of information transmission in the Internet age. A common phenomenon in the world of the printed word is that once a public figure  whether he be an athlete such a Yogi Berra, an entertainment figure such as Samuel Goldwyn, or a politician such as Dan Quayle  acquires a reputation for spouting malapropisms, people quickly begin to put words into his mouth. All sorts of humorous misuses of words and phrases that sound like something that person might have said are soon attributed to him as something he "really said"; newspapers run the erroneous quotes without verification and are later cited as documented proof of their veracity, thereby enshrining apocrypha as  fact. Only when someone undertakes the chore of trying to track the quotes back to their sources are the misattributions discovered, usually far too late to dislodge them from the public consciousness. So, we thought we'd tackle a project to see whether the increased availability of information in the Internet age has had any effect on this phenomenon; whether quotes are less likely to be misattributed when nearly every utterance of a public figure as prominent as a presidential candidate is recorded and stored in one form or another.  As a test example, we chose the "Make the Pie Higher!" piece reproduced above (generally credited to "Washington Post writer Richard Thompson," a satirist and illustrator who produces the "Richard's Poor Almanac" feature appearing in the Post's Sunday edition) and attempted to trace every statement listed therein to its source to determine how many of them were actually uttered by George W. Bush.  Our standard was that in order to consider a statement to be a genuine "Bushism" we had to find at least one major newspaper article that quoted the actual words spoken (rather than paraphrasing them), included specific information about when and where the statement was made, and was printed within a few days of the event at which the statement was offered. In this statistically insignificant non-random sample of one, we found that yes, the accuracy of quote transmission was remarkably high: All but a couple of the items in this piece could be reliably traced back to the mouth of George W. Bush. Here are the results:  "I think we all agree, the past is over." In March 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush locked up the Republican presidential nomination, beating out his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in a rancorous primary campaign marked by personal attacks and charges of dirty tactics on the part of both sides.  Two months later Senator McCain somewhat reluctantly endorsed Governor Bush for president during a joint appearance at the Westin William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, where both men tried their best (somewhat unconvincingly) to assure the press that they had put their differences behind them: Both sides swapped charges of dirty campaign tactics. McCain aides accused Bush supporters of personal attacks, and Mr. Bush denounced McCain forces for suggesting that the governor was guilty of anti-Catholic bigotry. On Tuesday, the pair told some 200 journalists that they had discussed policy, not personal history. "There's no point," Mr. McCain said. "I hold no rancor. Others will be the judge of this campaign, not me."  Mr. Bush said the McCain challenge toughened him for the fall campaign against Mr. Gore.  "We had a tough primary," Mr. Bush said. "I told him point blank: 'You made me a better candidate.'"  Later, on his campaign plane, the governor described the discussion as "very cordial, very frank, very open." He added: "I think we agree, the past is over."1 "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." On the campaign trail in South Carolina while pursuing the Republican nomination in January 2000, Governor Bush spoke before 2,000 loyal Republicans at a well-attended oyster roast held on a plantation outside Charleston and mystified his audience when, during his discourse on the need for a strengthened U.S. military, he made reference not to "mental" losses (which itself would have sounded odd in the given context), but to "mential" (pronounced "men-shul") losses: During his visit to South Carolina this week, the first Bushism exploded as the governor painted a passionate picture of the military dangers facing the US, and the pressing need for protection against rogue missile launches. "This is still a dangerous world," he told more than 2,000 supporters at an oyster roast. "It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." Bush's spokespeople could not immediately explain what a mential loss was, but it seemed only distantly related to missile launches.2 "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?'" During that same South Carolina campaign swing in January 2000, Governor Bush committed another grammatical mix-up while wrangling a sentence containing both singular and plural subjects, this example occurring (with a modicum of irony) during the portion of his stump speech dealing with education: That's not to say Bush hasn't had his share of flubs. Part of his stump speech focuses on education. On Tuesday, talking to a crowd of several hundred at a cavernous civic center in Florence, S.C., Bush decried those who ignore educational programs that produce no results  inadvertently revealing a temporary shortcoming in his own grammar skills.  "What's not fine is rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?" Bush said.3 "Will the highways of the Internet become more few?" During his January 2000 push to win the first primary election of the campaign, held in New Hampshire, Governor Bush was asked to comment on the recently announced merger of media giants Time Warner and AOL, and he addressed concerns over its potential monopolistic effects with some unusual phrasing: When asked about the Time Warner/America Online merger, the candidate took an unexpected detour on the information superhighway. The key question in considering the merger, Bush said, is "will the highways to the Internet become more few?"4 "How many hands have I shaked?" By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted.   When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances: Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."5 "They misunderestimate me." The misuse of 'misunderestimate' for 'underestimate' seems to be one of  George W. Bush's more common elocutionary mistakes.  We can't pin down exactly when he used 'misunderestimate' for the first time in a public statement as a presidential candidate; the earliest print reference we could find appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on 13 November 2000, but it didn't detail where and when he said it.  Nonetheless,  Bush was still using the word (and catching himself at it) after his inauguration as President, as demonstrated by this excerpt from a 29 March 2001 news conference: Look, it is in our nation's best interests to have long-term tax relief, and that has been my focus all along. I'm confident we can have it, get it done. I believe not only can we get long-term tax relief in place. Since our country is running some surpluses in spite of the dire predictions about cash flow, I believe we have an opportunity to fashion an immediate stimulus package, as well. The two ought to go hand in hand. Those who think that they can say, "We're only going to have a stimulus package, but let's forget tax relief," misunderestimate ...  or, excuse me,  underestimate  just making sure you were paying attention  underestimate our administration's resolve to get this done ...6 "I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." This line is a retrospective statement Bush uttered during an interview about his involvement in a partnershipthat bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989: George W. Bush has frequently claimed to have cobbled together the deal to buy the Rangers in 1989. "I was like a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity," Mr. Bush said in a long interview about his past. "And I just grabbed on to it. I was going to put the deal together. And I did." The initiative, Mr. Bush acknowledges, came from Bill DeWitt, a businessman and friend of the family. Mr. DeWitt had heard that the Rangers were on the market and wanted to recruit Mr. Bush as a partner to buy the team.15 "I know that the human being and the fish can coexist." On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:    Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.7 Mark Crispin Miller noted in The Bush Dyslexicon that: This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy.  A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predtente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream." Swinging through Wisconsin in mid-October 2000 en route to a debate with Democratic presidential challenger Al Gore, Governor Bush was discussing the importance of tax cuts to American families when he transposed a couple of words in a well-worn phrase: The Texas governor and GOP presidential nominee tangles up words often enough that he sometimes jokes about it, and the phenomenon has acquired a name  Bushism. On the campaign trail Wednesday, he let one fly: "Families is where our nation finds hope," he said, "where wings take dream."8 "Put food on your family!" On 27 January 2000, speaking in Nashua just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, Governor Bush was trying to illustrate the economic plight of single working mothers and again transposed (and omitted) a few words in the familiar reference to putting food on the table for one's family: At a breakfast meeting with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Bush illustrated his brand of compassionate conservatism by urging his listeners to put themselves in the role of a single mother "working hard to put food on your family."4 Since these words are difficult to quote in the context in which they were offered, they were soon being rendered as the pithier "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." "Knock down the tollbooth!" Governor Bush's misuse of 'tollbooth' for 'roadblock,' in reference to eliminating tax obstacles that prevent the working poor from joining the middle class, comes from his New Hampshire campaign appearances in January 2000, but contemporary reports don't seem to agree on the exact words he used  perhaps there was more than one such incident: Things must be good here, because the mere mention of tax cuts is not enough to get the crowd cheering. What they like is when Bush worries about the working poor; they applaud vigorously when he complains that a single mother making $22,000 is being penalized by the tax system. "It's not fair!" Bush exclaims. "It's a tollbooth on the road to the middle class, and I intend not only to reduce the fees but to knock the tollbooth down."9  "The hardest job in America is to be a single mom, making $20,000 a year," Bush declared at a recent Rotary Club lunch where he promised that as president, he would reduce the struggling woman's marginal income-tax rate and "knock down her tollbooth to the middle class."10   Last weekend, fire marshals were actually turning people away from political rallies. At a high school near Nashua, you could see folks forlornly peeking in the windows, yearning to be let inside to hear George W. Bush call for "a law that provides liability to teachers who enforce discipline in the schools." All the candidates are tired, but Mr. Bush's speeches are getting particularly unintelligible  at the same high school, he announced, "I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." 11 "Vulcanize society! " At the very beginning of the 2000 presidential campaign, Ken Herman reported in a front-page story appearing in the 23 March 1999 edition of the Austin American-Statesman that Governor Bush had expressed his disdain for racial quotas as programs that "vulcanize" society: Sometimes this smooth operator is anything but. This was evident in a March 23 piece by Ken Herman, the Austin American-Statesman's chief Bush watcher, who wrote about the governor's "2-step around hot topics." Mr. Bush says he's against "hard quotas, quotas that basically delineate based on whatever. However, they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society."12 In this instance Governor Bush of course meant to say 'Balkanize' (to divide a group into small, often hostile units) rather than 'vulcanize' (to improve the strength of rubber by combining it with sulfur in the presence of heat and pressure).  However, the issue was muddied a few days later when the American-Statesman reversed itself and issued a correction:  A front-page story Tuesday inaccurately quoted Gov. George W. Bush's position on quotas in college admissions and the awarding of state contracts. The story said Bush believes quotas "vulcanize society." Bush actually said he believes quotas "Balkanize society."13 Whether the reporter misquoted Governor Bush or whether Governor Bush really did say 'vulcanize' and the American-Statesman later printed an amended quote at the behest of his office is something we can't determine. "Make the pie higher!" This final item (a misstatement of the concept of putting more money into the hands of Americans by reducing taxes to grow the economy and enlarge the economic "pie" that everyone shares  i.e., making the pie "bigger" rather than "higher") is the phrase perhaps most often cited as an example of "Bushisms," so much so that it was used for the title of the poem quoted at the head of this page.  And it is a real quote, something Bush said during the course of a 15 February 2000 Republican debate (moderated by CNN host Larry King) in Columbia, South Carolina, between Texas Governor George W. Bush, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes: The difference between our plans is, I know whose money it is we're dealing with. We're dealing with the government  we're dealing with the people's money, not the government's money. And I want to give people their money back.  And if you're going to have a tax cut, everybody ought to have a tax cut. This kind of Washington, D.C., view about targeted tax cuts is tax cuts driven by polls and focus groups. If you pay taxes in America, you ought to get a tax cut.  Under my plan, if you're a family of four in South Carolina, making $50,000, you get 50-percent tax cut. I've reduced the lower rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, which does this  and this is important. There are people on the outskirts of poverty, like single moms who are working the toughest job in America. If she has two kids, and making $22,000, for every additional dollar she earns, she pays a higher marginal rate on her taxes than someone making $200,000.  You bet I cut the taxes at the top. That encourages entrepreneurship. What we Republicans should stand for is growth in the economy. We ought to make the pie higher. This one initially posed something of a mystery to us, because transcripts of the debate prepared by the Federal Document Clearing House and CNN attribute the block of text quoted above to Senator John McCain, not Governor Bush.  However, the immediately preceding question had clearly been posed to Governor Bush, and newspaper accounts the following morning noted the "make the pie higher" comment as something uttered by Governor Bush: Bush, shedding his sometimes goofy demeanor, was as animated and forceful as he has been in any debate, punching the air with his fist to underscore his words. He scored points among the party faithful in calling for an end to the Clinton era in Washington  one of the money lines of the night. On taxes and bringing prosperity to struggling working mothers, however, Bush mangled one metaphor: "We ought to make the pie higher."14 Moreover, at a Radio/TV correspondents' dinner in Washington, D.C., a few weeks later, Governor Bush made humorous use of the item with no indication that the words weren't his own: Now most people would say in speaking of the economy, "We ought to make the pie bigger." I, however, am on record saying, "We ought to make the pie higher." As frivolous as this experiment may have been, let's hope it's a harbinger of more accurate information to come. Last updated:  21 July 2008    Sources:    7.  Allen, Mike.  "Bush's Gaffes Are Back As Debates Near."   The Washington Post.  1 October 2000  (p. A8).    11.  Collins, Gail.  "Savor the Moment."   The New York Times.  1 February 2000  (p. A21).     5.  Henneberger, Melinda.  "New Hampshire Warns Bush, 'Don't Be a Stranger Hee-ahh'"   The New York Times.  23 October 1999  (p. A12).    12.  Hunt, Albert R.  "George W. Can Run But He Can't Hide."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 April 1999  (p. A23).     4.  Hutcheson, Ron.  "Candidate George W. Bush Sometimes Mangles Words."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  29 January 2000  (p. A8).        Ivins, Molly.  Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.   New York: Random House, 2000.  ISBN 0-375-50399-4  (p. 19). Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush     1.  Jackson, David and Wayne Slater.  "Subdued McCain Endorses Bush."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 May 2000.    16.  Kristof, Nicholas D.  "The 2000 Campaign: Breaking Into Baseball."   The New York Times.  24 September 2000.    10.  Leonard, Mary.  "Fight Intensifies for Votes of Women."   The Boston Globe.  22 January 2000  (p. A1).     8.  Mason, Julie.  "Campaign Notebook."   The Houston Chronicle.  19 October 2000  (p. A38).    14.  Miga, Andrew.  "Tight S. Carolina Race Fuels Contentious Debate."   The Boston Globe.  16 February 2000  (p. 27).        Miller, Mark Crispin.  The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.   New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.  ISBN 0-393-04183-2. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder     3.  Miller, T. Christian.  "With a Grin, Bush Answers Early Charges of Aloofness."   Los Angeles Times.  14 January 2000  (p. 20).        Smith, Zay N.  "A Small Comfort Amid Election Snafus, Quarrels."   Chicago Sun-Times.  13 November 2000  (p. 26).     9.  Von Drehle, David.  "12 Hours, 4 Contenders, Many Parallels."   The Washington Post.  15 January 2000  (p. A1).    13.  Austin American-Statesman.  "Corrections."   25 March 1999  (p. A2).     2.  The Financial Times.  "Bushed Again."   14 January 2000.     6.  The New York Times.  "In Bush's Words: 'Both Sides Must Take Important Steps' in the Mideast."   30 March 2001  (p. A12). Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to U.S. President Donald Trump, became the focus of renewed scrutiny in February 2019 when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform. This was Cohen's first Congressional testimony since he was sentenced to three years in prison for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations relating to his payment of "hush money" to women who alleged they had sexual relationships with Donald Trump before he became president. sentenced Cohen also admitted he previously misled Congress when he told the House and Senate Intelligence committees that a proposed deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, had fallen apart in January 2016, when in fact negotiations continued until June of that year -- by which time Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee for president. misled Following Cohen's dramatic 27 February testimony, some observers, including Trump himself, attempted to portray Cohen as an agent of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was dishonestly smearing Trump on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee whom Trump defeated in 2016. The president highlighted the links between Clinton and Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, even suggesting that the former secretary of state was paying Cohen to provide damning testimony against Trump: Michael Cohens book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clintons lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019 March 1, 2019   We couldn't find any evidence that Davis has ever acted as Clinton's personal attorney as Trump alleged, but the ties between Davis and the Clintons are longstanding. He served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, attended Yale law school with Hillary Clinton, and was a frequent public supporter of her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns, such as is shown in this July 2016 Fox News panel discussion: attended 2008  Against that background, a meme emerged on social media in late February 2019 that claimed an even more direct historical link between Cohen and Clinton, alleging that Cohen had previously served as her personal attorney and was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by Bill Clinton that has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories promulgated by right-leaning opponents of the Clintons. conspiracy theories The meme included a photograph of Hillary Clinton standing alongside two men identified as "Michael Cohen" and "Clinton Foundation Chairman" along with text proclaiming "Michael Cohen used to be Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer and was a member of the Clinton Foundation":   The man identified as Cohen in the meme is indeed Cohen. The man identified as "Clinton Foundation Chairman" is in fact Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic former U.S. representative from Rhode Island and son of the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has never acted as chairman of the Clinton Foundation. The underlying photograph is authentic. Cohen himself tweeted it in June 2014, writing "Being received by two great Americans ... Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound": #tbt being received by two great Americans...Hillary Clinton and Patrick Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW #tbt pic.twitter.com/z57PXfWxfW  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 26, 2014 June 26, 2014   The photograph appears to have been taken in 2004 at a fundraising event for Kennedy's re-election campaign, which was attended by then-New York Sen. Clinton as well as Cohen. Greg Ehrlich, who co-chaired the fundraiser in question, later told the Washington Post that It was an opportunity to say he [Cohen] went to the Kennedy compound. And he loved the Clintons. They were like rock stars. Michael was always a climber. He wanted to be the guy. Washington Post Although they once attended the same campaign fundraiser, we could find no evidence to corroborate the claim that Cohen ever acted as Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, despite our searching federal and New York state court records as well as news archives that extend back decades. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen was publicly hostile towards Clinton, on one occasion tweeting out a meme that included the false claim she had "murdered an ambassador": NBC/WSJ poll has @realDonaldTrump beating #CrookedHillary on #Honesty & #NationalSecurity. This picture says it all! pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV @realDonaldTrump #CrookedHillary #Honesty #NationalSecurity pic.twitter.com/E9YKIgoqnV  Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) June 28, 2016 June 28, 2016  On another occasion, Cohen tweeted at Clinton to say "When you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free":   Cohen deleted that tweet after he himself was given a three-year prison sentence for tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. deleted The Clinton Foundation does not have a membership structure, so it is unclear what the precise meaning is of the claim that Cohen was a "member" of the Clinton Foundation, but we also found no evidence that he has ever had any formal or informal association with that organization. We contacted representatives for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Michael Cohen in order to definitively clarify the veracity of the February 2019 meme, but unfortunately none of them responded in time for publication. For that reason, we issue a rating of "Unproven." Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Judge Gives Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen 3 Years in Prison."
  Associated Press.  12 December 2018. Tucker, Eric et al.  "Trump's Ex-Lawyer Admits Lies About Russian Real Estate Deal."
  Associated Press.  30 November 2018. Schwartzman, Paul.  "Michael Cohen's Secret Agenda."
  The Washington Post.  9 February 2019. Palma, Bethania.  "Did Michael Cohen Tweet at Hillary Clinton That Room and Board Will Be Free When She Goes to Prison?"
  Snopes.com.  22 August 2018.