Did Portland Mayor Declare State of Emergency After Antifa, BLM Posters Called for Violence?
On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland.
Claim:  Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Origins:  An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan:   He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.   How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.   A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.   Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. confirmed The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one: Last updated:  8 January 2015 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Sen. Mark Warners re-election stump speech dwells on giving everyone an equal opportunity and high on that list is an affordable college education. Warner and many of his fellow Democrats have called for legislation that would ease student debt by allowing students to refinance their federal college loans at substantially lower interest rates and limit their loan repayments to 10 percent of their annual income. President Barack Obama endorsed those measures during a speech Monday.. Warner, during a recent speech of his own,said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. This statistic caught our attention, so we put it to the Truth-O-Meter. David Turner, spokesman for Warners campaign, backed up the statement by sending us aspeechby an official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anddatafrom the Federal Reserve System. Both of those sources say that student debt has topped $1 trillion and the speech noted that it had surpassed credit cards. But the best data comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which publishesdebt statisticsevery quarter. In the most recent report, covering first three months of 2014, student loan debt totaled $1.1 trillion, while credit card debt hit $659 billion. The largest type of debt for Americans is mortgages, which came in at $8.2 trillion in the first quarter. Student loan debt is No. 2, followed by automobile loans at $875 billion and credit card debt in making up $11.7 trillion in all debt. Student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, when college loans hit $762 billion. Student debt topped the $1 trillion mark in the third quarter of last year. Average tuition across the nation increased 79.5 percent from 2003-2013, according todatafrom the U.S. Labor Department. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index grew by26.7percent during the same span and average wages grew by30.1percent. Credit card debt, by contrast, has gradually fallen from $843 billion in early 2009 to its $659 billion level this year. Much of the decrease occurred during the recession when people cut back on spending. But the recession exacerbated college debts, according to Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. She cited two reasons: You have to remember that during the time of the Great Recession, more people were going back to school because of the job situation, so they were taking on more debt, she said. Astudyshe co-wrote tackled the demographics of people with student loan debt. It found that student loan debt, for those ages 29 to 37, had increased by $10,381 on average from 1989 to 2010, while car loans had increased $302, credit card debt had increased $1,215 and other debt had decreased $2,078. In 2012, 40 percent of Americans in their 20s had student debt, 30 percent in their 30s owed on student loans, 19 percent of Americans in their 40s, 12 percent in their 50s and 4 percent in their 60s. This included students and parents who borrowed to send their children to college. Our ruling Warner said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. His figure on student debt is accurate and total U.S. credit card debt in the first quarter of this year was $659 billion. We rate Warners statement True. On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following: violent events Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville #Charlottesville  Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017 August 12, 2017  In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama.  That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words. criticism spoof items posted Shortly after the 12 August 2017 statement referenced above was posted to the First Lady's Twitter feed, another image began circulating online positing that Melania Trump had likewise taken those words (without credit) from a comment made by former First Lady Michelle Obama over a year earlier:  Although we can't yet absolutely rule out the possibility that Mrs. Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, we have found no record of her having done so (on 16 April 2016 or any other day) and suspect that this image is just a spoof of the earlier convention speech controversy. On Oct. 22, 2019, a link to an op-ed entitled "Trump's Obama envy is getting even worse" was shared to a number of anti-Trump Facebook groups, such as Anti Donald Trump, original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY, and DEFEAT TRUMP 2020!, along with an alleged excerpt from the article in which the president claimed that former President Barack Obama had written the emoluments clause of the U.S.Constitution: Anti Donald Trump original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY DEFEAT TRUMP 2020! Trump Accuses Obama Of Writing The US Constitution Because He Knows The Constitution Is Very, Very Bad For Me Appearing on Fox and News, Trump accused Obama of writing the Constitution to make him look bad. I know for certain that he wrote the emoluments clause, because he cant stand to see me make so much illegal money, Trump said. Ive said all along, Obama is obsessed with me, Trump said, adding, He will do anything to make me look bad, but it never works and he cant stand to see me winning. Busy day and so much winning. Time for golf.   The text of this Facebook post does not relay a genuine quote from Trump. Trump did not claim that Obama wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution during an appearance on Fox News, nor does this quote appear in the linked op-ed story published in The Washington Post. The Washington Post Trump appeared on Fox News on Oct. 21, 2019, for an interview with Sean Hannity. While Trump mentioned Obama a number of times during that interview, he didn't accuse his predecessor of writing the Constitution, which was written more than 200 years ago.  interview 200 years ago Some readers may have been taken in by the fake quote because it was published a day after Trump described the emoluments clause as "phony."  Vox reported:  reported President Donald Trump is still defending the White Houses decision to host next years G7 summit, a gathering of seven world leaders, at a Miami resort owned by Trumps business  even though he abandoned the plan after it was widely criticized. At a Cabinet meeting on Monday, he blamed the backlash against his attempt to profit from the G7 on you people with this phony emoluments clause, referring to a provision of the Constitution which prevents federal officials from being compensated by foreign governments. While Trump may have called the emoluments clause "phony," he did not claim Obama wrote it. We therefore rate this claim  Millhiser, Ian.  "The Emoluments Clause, Explained for Donald Trump."
  Vox.  22 October 2019. Robinson, Eugene.  "Trumps Obama Envy is Getting Even Worse."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. Claim:  Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS.  Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it!  If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.  [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007"    [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day..  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st  HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED.  THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC.  WHO PAYS IN THE END?  WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.  MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA  SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.  SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask  them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins:  The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999.  All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.  A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices.   The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all.  The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would  The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money.  By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.  Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.)  As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died.  Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.  Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.  In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane.  Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.  A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations.  "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference."  Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet.  Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand.  No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal.  Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message.  In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices?  Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices:      Petition to President Bush      Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists     Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down  Last updated:  11 March 2013    Deibel, Mary.  "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say."   The [Albany] Times Union.  27 April 1999  (p. A2).     De Marcol, Donna.  "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal."   The Washington Times.  1 May 1999  (p. C11).     Heaster, Jerry.  "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty."   The Kansas City Star.  30 April 1999  (p. C1).     Howe, Kenneth.  "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  1 May 1999  (p. A1).     Sands, Aaron.  "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas."   The Ottawa Sun.  1 May 1999  (p. A4).     Simmons, Cindy.  "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump."   Associated Press.  1 May 1999.     Surman, Matt.  "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change."   Los Angeles Times.  1 May 1999  (p. B6).     Associated Press.  "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'"   1 May 1999.     Calgary Herald.  "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott."   1 May 1999  (p. E5).     Indianapolis Business Journal.  "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump."   3 May 1999  (p. B9).     Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps."   1 May 1999  (p. B3).     The Toronto Star.  "Gas Boycott Sputters."   1 May 1999. During the tour to promote his presidential memoir,Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC'sToday Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents.Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average.Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of modern presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent),George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures. )You can do the same with spending and tax receipts.For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent),George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4).For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson andGeorge W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent).Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider modern. If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts.But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures.And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower.The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller.This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the modern presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the modern presidents to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the modern presidents to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. Claim:  Photographs show a woman hand-feeding hummingbirds.   . Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Hand Feeding Hummingbirds Something I have never seen before, nor ever even heard of. This lady lives in a Hummingbird fly zone. As they migrated, about 20 of them were in her yard. Just for a lark, she took the little red dish and filled it with sugar water and these are the results.             (Photographs  2006 Sam & Abigail Alfano) Origins:   Most  of us see hummingbirds as shy, skittish little creatures that dart away if they so much as think someone is looking at them, so the idea that (as pictured above) these tiny birds would willingly come to land and feed on a person's hand seems rather remarkable.  However, training hummingbirds to hand-feed is not as difficult as one might think and can be accomplished with the right approach and a bit of patience. hand-feed The images displayed here were taken from the gallery ofphotographer Sam Alfano of Pine, Louisiana, who snapped pictures of his wife Abigail feeding hummingbirds in September 2006.   As Mrs. Alfano told us: gallery I am Abigail Alfano, Sam's wife, the lady in the photos. Thank you for your interest. We are amazed by how much attention these photos have recieved. If I had any idea that they would have circulated all over the world like they have, I would have worn make-up that morning!!!! :-) Due to the tremendous popularity these pictures achieved after they were circulated (without attribution) via e-mail, Abigail put up a web page identifying herself as the "Hummingbird Lady" and providing her and her husband's explanations of the photos' origins and spread across the Internet: web page I am Abigail Alfano, the woman in the photos. My husband, Sam is the photographer. We live in Pine, Louisiana which is approximately 1 1/2 hours north of New Orleans.This year we had more hummingbirds in our yard than I ever recall. The feeder sits right outside of my window where I drink my morning coffee. I remember watching the birds one morning and telling my husband that I wish I could just hold one! We decided to give it a shot. Over the course of several days, I would simply stand beside the feeder so that they would get used to my presence. Then, I began putting my hands around the feeder so that in order to drink they had to land on my fingers. I was amazed at how quickly they were willing to do this.  The next step was to remove the feeder and place a small red cap on an old milk can in the same area. They eventually found the small replacement and began feeding. The morning the photos were taken, I simply went outside and filled the cap with the sugar water, placed it in the palm of my hand, and sat very very still. Within ten minutes, they were resting in my hands, drinking. It was sheer delight for me! I was even able to move my hands around a bit with the birds on my fingers. They are light as a feather ... and simply beautiful. I can't wait until next year.  On September 14, 2006 my wife Abigail decided she'd like to 'touch' one of the 20 or 30 hummingbirds that were swarming around our feeder at the peak of their migration. With patience and determination she accomplished her goal. I am her husband Sam, and I shot the photos of her hand-feeding hummingbirds in our yard here in near Franklinton, Louisiana.  On September 20th the [Franklinton] Era Leader newspaper published the photos on the front page. We then emailed them to a few of our friends and had no idea they would quickly be forwarded around the world. Many of our friends have called or emailed us saying they were forwarded photos of a lady feeding hummingbirds, and it was Abigail! Had I known the photos would spread like wildfire, I would have put our names on them. Unfortunately, as the Alfanos noted, someone else used one of these images to win a weekly photo contest held by TV station WTVQ in Lexington, Kentucky, submitting the photo and falsely claiming that she was the woman whose hands were pictured therein. Last updated:  3 November 2006