Did Democrats Really Do All of This?
In January 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme that had been circulating on Facebook since July 2019:   The meme presented three claims, which we unpack below: The above-displayed meme did not specify a specific state or branch of government, implying all Democrats were responsible for the actions in question; however, the first claim in the meme ("Democrats killed a bill for tuition assistance for children of veterans killed in battle") was similar to one we rated "True" in April 2019 as it pertained to New York state. "True" And regarding that bill, "killed," as the meme stated, is a strong word in this context, given that similar legislation was still listed as in committee and potentially set to take effect April 1, 2020, at the time of this writing. However, its true that in 2019 Democrats in a committee of the state New York Assembly voted to block a bill expanding the state's tuition aid program covering so-called "Gold Star" families, defined as immediate relatives of service members who "lost their lives while engaged in hostilities, as a result of an international terrorist attack, or under certain other circumstances." The bill proposed offering "free tuition" not just to Gold Star families but also to dependent family of service members who died while performing official military duties. listed defined To be clear: The blocked bill proposed expanding the states Military Enhanced Recognition Incentive and Tribute (MERIT) scholarship program to include family members of those killed or disabled in non-combat situations. The MERIT program already provides tuition and other assistance to family members of military personnel killed or disabled while engaged in (or training for) hostilities. MERIT In other words, the children of someone killed in battle, as the meme put it, would seem to qualify for the existing tuition-assistance program. The proposed extension of funding would have also covered family members who were killed or disabled while not in combat. It should be noted for what reason the Democrats stopped the bill. According to Newsday: Newsday Democrats said they did not support the Republican proposal because it was released after legislators passed the states $175 billion budget April 1, [2019], meaning it would have no source of funding even if it were signed into law. Democratic legislators said their college aid proposal would go into effect April 1, 2020, presumably giving lawmakers time to include additional spending for military family scholarships in next years budget. Not wanting to wait, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, announced a plan on April 17, 2019, to immediately grant tuition assistance to family members of all New York service members who were killed while performing any official duties, effectively providing a stop-gap until the new legislation took effect in 2020. announced So while Democrats did indeed block a tuition-assistance bill for families of service members who were killed or disabled outside of combat, this applied only in New York state and tuition assistance remained available to families of service members who were killed or disabled while in service. The second claim ("... THEN APPROVE subsidizing the education and healthcare of Illegal Immigrants") was similar, in part, to one we rated as "Mixture" in February 2019. "Mixture"  As we previously reported, New Yorks DREAM Act (not to be confused with proposed federal legislation of the same name) allows undocumented high school students to qualify for in-state, college-tuition assistance to public universities and community colleges. proposed federal legislation allows Again, this legislation applied only to New York state. It is true that some Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits have been extended, with various conditions and exceptions, to immigrants of varying status in a few states, including New York. conditions and exceptions While the idea of promising health care to "undocumented" immigrants has certainly received support among Democratic presidential candidates leading up to the 2020 election, it is not a nationwide benefit, as the meme may suggest. support Finally, its worth noting that the order of events presented in the meme is misleading, as the New York state DREAM Act was passed before the tuition-assistance bill. Given the kernels of truth presented in this overall oversimplified and misleading presentation, we rate this claim as "Mixture." The New York State Senate.  "Senate Bill S5187."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. National Immigration Law Center.  "Medical Assistance Programs for Immigrants in Various States"
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Campbell, Joe.  New York to Make College Tuition Aid Available to DREAMers.'
  Democrat & Chronicle. 23 January 2019. Military One Source.  "Scholarship Opportunities for Surviving Family Members."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Evans, Martin C.  "State Senate Dems Tout Bill to Aid Dependents of Fallen Vets Pay for College."
  Newsday.  15 April 2019.
A series of imagespurportedly showinga UFO photographed by several different people began circulating via social media in October 2015: Yesterday afternoon in Memphis 4-6 random people posted these pictures on social media. The weirdest thing is that each of these individuals did not know each other and they all captured the same thing! Why isn't this being broadcasted on all major media outlets?! Somebody has some explaining to do. While the example Facebook post shown above reported that the alien ship was spotted over Memphis, Tennessee, other iterations of the photo set have claimed that the UFO was actually spotted inBenguela, Angola: claimed We'vehad a lot of people visiting the site over the past few weeks looking specifically for information about a remarkable UFO sighting in Banguela, Angola. The sightings were originally reported to MUFON and included a rather stunning image of the gigantic UFO that was not featured here on the UFOMG! copies of the reports. Here it isnow:  Even though these images all feature different settings, the UFO, as well as the surrounding cloud formations, pictured in each photograph are exactly the same. This means one of two things: Either a race of aliens has developed an efficient form of replicating technology, or the above-displayed photographs were created using the same stock image of a UFO. In fact, this series of photographs purportedly showing a UFO over Memphis (or Benguela) was created using a piece of fan art related to the V science fiction television series (about alien visitors to Earth) created bydigital artist Jukka Korhonen: artist   I was a big fan of V when it first came out. My love for the series has been growing bigger ever since they released the show on the DVD. The biggest news for V fans was the possible release of a sequel-series titled "V: The Second Generation". I quickly scetched out a few concept works and a fanmade poster to celebrate the announcement. As with many times in the media-mentality of amercan television, the "V: Second Generation" was not considered a mainstream series and so the network decided to freeze the project at the final meters. For this portfolio, I took out the V model I had made for the poster and combined it with one of my matteclouds. This image was one of the "doom" concept ideas that I had in mind when I first heard about the new series.  Modelled in trueSpace and postwork in Corel GS. This is NOT official art for the series, its merely fan-art from a dedicated admirer of Kenneth Johnson's work. I hope one day we will see the series come to life and see these iconic ships rise again to the LA skies ... 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 In December 2020, as states certified their election results and confirmed that Democratic candidate Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump continued to push baseless claims that the election was "rigged," "stolen," or marred with widespread voter fraud.  voter fraud On Dec. 9, Trump furthered this false narrative by claiming on social media that his election loss was an historic oddity in that no other candidate had even won the states of Florida and Ohio but still lost the general election: claiming  As we pointed out in an article at the time, Trump was wrong. Precedent did exist for a candidate's losing an election while winning both Florida and Ohio, namely Richard Nixon in 1960, who -- despite capturing those two key states -- was defeated by Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy. article The following day, Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim, moving the goal posts by this time asserting that no previous presidential candidate had won the states of Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and "even come close to losing an election" -- as Trump himself did in 2020:  But Trump was wrong again, for the very same reason. Nixon won all three of those states in the 1960 general election but nevertheless still lost the presidency to Kennedy:  Like Nixon 60 years earlier, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa during the 2020 election, but he fell short of the 270 electoral college votes required to secure the presidency. Trumps electoral college total of 232 votes was slightly better than Nixons 219, but they simply werent enough compared to Bidens 306. As many others have pointed out, one of the pitfalls of the Internet as a means of communications is that it can be used to spread misinformation as rapidly as accurate information, but all too often the former is set loose to spread far and wide, and correction comes too late, if at all. Here is a case in point of why even a simple memory of a recent event  a television appearance by someone of prominence  spread via e-mail cannot be trusted as accurate. Even though the gist of the message is true, nearly every detail it contains is wrong. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Bryant Gumbel recently interviewed Billy Graham's daughter on the Today Show.Gumbel: "Why didn't God stop this or do something about this?" Billy Graham's daughter: "For years we have told God we didn't want Him in our schools. We didn't want Him in our government and we didn't want Him in our finances and God was being a perfect gentleman in doing just what we asked Him to do. We need to make up our mind  do we want God or do we not want Him. We cannot just ask Him in when disaster strikes." Bryant Gumbel was silent. On September 13, Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of the Reverend Billy Graham, appeared on on CBS's Early Show, not NBC's Today program. She was interviewed by Jane Clayson, not Bryant Gumbel. Neither the question posed to her nor her response is quoted accurately above. Her interviewer was not "silent" after her remarks; the interview proceeded as before after this exchange: Jane Clayson: I've heard people say, those who are religious, those who are not, if God is good, how could God let this happen? To that, you say? Anne Graham Lotz: I say God is also angry when he sees something like this. I would say also for several years now Americans in a sense have shaken their fist at God and said, God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace. And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life. Removing his hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, God, we're sorry we have treated you this way and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you. We have our trust in God on our coins, we need to practice it. Ms. Lotz did say, in effect, that we cannot simultaneously reject God in our daily lives yet still expect His protection when disaster strikes, but now a paraphrase of one response she made in the course of a longer interview has been offered as a direct quote, and all the details about the context in which she made the remark have been gotten wrong. Additional Information:    Transcript of Anne Graham Lotz Interview In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. On April 7, 2021, the real estate gossip website Dirt reported that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors had purchased a home in Topanga, an eccentric neighborhood located in the western portion of Los Angeles, for $1.4 million. Dirt reported eccentric Categorized under real estate purchases by "politicians," Dirt's headline reported, "Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Lands Topanga Canyon Compound." (Cullors is a political activist, but she isn't a "politician" in the sense that she holds public office.) The story sparked a tsunami of spinoff articles and commentary with the aggregate effect of creating a cloud of doubt over the finances of the nonprofit organization associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, the peak of which was a claim in a meme that baselessly accused Cullors of using donations to Black Lives Matter to purchase the house:   But Dirt's article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn't report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold "to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled" by Cullors, but didn't name the corporation. Cullors is a fairly high-profile public figure. Aside from being an activist and organizer, she makes frequent media appearances. She is the co-author of a best-selling book, "When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir." She also signed a deal with Warner Brothers in late 2020 to create programming for the network's various platforms. book deal We sent Dirt an email asking if they would disclose the name of the business entity the home was sold to, but didn't receive a response in time for publication. We haven't been able to independently verify Dirt's report that Cullors purchased the home in Topanga. Her name didn't come up in our own public records search. In an April 2022 investigative report by New York Magazine's Intelligencer outlining a $6 million home purchase by Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN), however, movement leaders appeared to indirectly acknowledge that Cullors had indeed purchased properties, although it doesn't give specifics. In a statement sent to Snopes by email, BLMGNF directly denied the allegation that Cullors had used donation money to buy the Topanga Canyon home, or any other personal property: To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false. Since the organization's inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors' role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid. She currently serves as the executive director, per the Foundation's statement. The organization also characterized the narrative as a "right-wing offensive" against a high-profile Black activist that "not only puts Patrisse, her child and her loved ones in harms way, it also continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists." We'll break down some of the dialogue and reporting around this story, but the important points are these: If it's true that Cullors purchased the Topanga home, no evidence has been presented that proves she did so with donation money. This claim is based on supposition. Important additional context is that while many stories about the home portray it as a lavish purchase, those portrayals are exaggerated. Compared with other properties listed on Dirt, the home reportedly purchased by Cullors is relatively modest. Other posts on the site detail multi-million dollar estates bought by the likes of pop music icon Madonna, tennis champion Serena Williams, and pop star Ariana Grande. Even if it's true that Cullors purchased a single family home in Los Angeles for $1.4 million, we note that because of overall home prices in L.A., that amount doesn't go as far as it would in other areas. Dirt reports that the home in Topanga has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a guest house and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot. It's not small but to call it a "mansion" as Fox News did in an April 13 headline is a stretch. headline Right-leaning Media Research Center tweeted, "The liberal media wont cover this: [Black Lives Matter] co-founder Patrisse Cullors bought a 1.4 MILLION dollar house near Beverly Hills." tweeted Everything in the city of Los Angeles could technically be described as being "near Beverly Hills" just as easily as it could be described as being "near Disneyland." The Topanga community is about 20 miles from Beverly Hills. Many of the reports touched on tensions among some activists within the Black Lives Matter movement itself by quoting comments given by Hawk Newsome, a BLM activist in New York, who told the New York Post he thought the nonprofit's finances should be investigated. New York Post Aside from getting record numbers of feet on the street in demonstrations across the country in the spring and summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter organizers told The Associated Press that it brought in $90 million in donations to the nonprofit organization associated with the movement, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. told The Post story published on April 10 also reported Cullors went on a "million dollar real estate buying binge" and claimed she spent $3.2 million "snagging four high-end homes." published When you read past the headline and leading language, the Post story really describes two modest home purchases, one in South Los Angeles (formerly known as South Central) and the other in Inglewood. Both homes are in working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively. Like most homes in Los Angeles, they have appreciated in value since their most recent purchase date. South Central The Post also reports Cullors' wife bought a home in rural Georgia and that the couple "eyed" luxury property in the Bahamas, without purchasing it. Was this a "buying binge"? We don't have enough information from the Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases? errors Black Lives Matter was founded in 2013 by three women: Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. It was originated as a response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. But the phrase and its underlying civil rights cause have been the rallying cry for a national racial justice movement in response to the killing of Black people by police, and racism embedded in the criminal justice system. killing The spring and summer of 2020 saw the movement's biggest demonstrations in its history, with millions of Americans braving the COVID-19 pandemic to take to the streets, touched off by the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. As the movement reached critical mass and thus scored social and political wins, which included major companies affirming their commitment to racial justice and the election of progressive leaders, Black Lives Matter has also been a regular target for right-wing media and commenters. target media commenters Cullors resigned from the foundation in May 2021, stating the move had been in the works for more than a year. She told the Associated Press she was resigning to further focus on a new book and the TV deal with Warner Bros. In late August 2021, Cullors was appointed to the Los Angeles County Arts Commission. told appointed Updated to include Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation statement. Updated to note Cullors left her post with the non-profit organization in May 2021 and was appointed to the L.A. County Arts Commission in August 2021. FACT CHECK: Did Kentucky hire an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs?      Claim:  Kentucky hired an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs.    Example:   [Collected via Twitter and Facebook, August 2015] Why can't an Amish worker at a DMV refuse to give out driver's licenses? pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB  Hamybear (@hamybear) August 16, 2015 August 16, 2015    Origins: On 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court's decision in the case Obergefell vs. Hodges [PDF] held that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Almost immediately, that decision led to a number of rumors and viral claims; that pedophiles would soon be granted similar rights, that Joe Biden had gone on a victory spree, and that Facebook had begun tracking the political beliefs of users via a celebratory rainbow filter for profile pictures.) PDF pedophiles Joe Biden rainbow filter Tangential rumors circulated pertaining to individuals and businesses who subsequently (or previously) went out on a limb for their religious opposition to marriage equality, which included a false claim involving a pastor purportedly  jailed for refusing to marry a gay couple and the true case of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay damages stemming from a pre-decision refusal to serve a same-sex couple. The meme displayed above was inspired by Kentucky court clerk named Kim Davis, who unwittingly starred in a viral video during which she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling. jailed bakery Kim Davis On 12 August 2015, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Davis [PDF] to begin issuing licenses as requested. Bunning wrote in his ruling that by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others," Davis had violated the law, adding: ordered PDF Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The humorous image above was clearly created to poke fun at Davis over the legal dispute (and the general issue of allowing personal religious beliefs to trump the requirements of employment and public service), a subtlety lost on many social media users who hadn't heard of the marriage license controversy in Kentucky and consequently didn't get the joke. The jape partially relies outsider assumptions about Amish  culture, one of which is the notion that Amish people are prohibited from driving due to their religion. That's not precisely accurate, as use of a horse-and-buggy over cars is primarily a cultural choice and not part of a specific anti-automobile religious edict applied to everyone: Amish anti-automobile Although the Amish are allowed to use automobiles for social and business functions, the church rules prohibit members from owning as well as driving a car. Amish businessmen are also not allowed to provide loans to non-Amish employees for the purpose of buying a vehicle. Ownership of an automobile is considered a taboo. It is important to the community to maintain the horse and buggy as a symbol of Amish identity. The joke also leans on a (fallacious) assumption that Amish citizens neither seek nor require state driver's licenses, part of a broad, inaccurate perception of the community as frightened of the outside world. The Amish often need state-issued ID for a variety of day-to-day purposes, including the operation of lucrative businesses (contrary to the belief Amish people reject wealth and/or financial success entirely or that they lack awareness of modern conventions). Photographic requirements have presented problems for Amish people seeking licenses, however, as their traditions generally favor the avoidance of photography. (Yet another misconception asserts the practice is due to a primitive, uneducated fear that the camera might "steal" a person's soul; in actuality, it's more due to intentional humility and not a fear of technology.) state-issued ID variety operation photography fear steal soul While the meme seen here satirizes the imposition of religious belief on outsiders by a presumably stricter sect, it should be noted that Amish communities are known for a marked disinclination to interact with the "English" world save for necessary circumstances. Although their religious beliefs are notoriously stringent, Amish folks are far likelier to be encroached upon by a conflict of law and faith than the other way around. disinclination Last updated:  17August 2015 Originally published: 17August 2015 Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Austin voters should doubt mayoral aspirant Mike Martinezs commitment to an affordable city, his opponent in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff maintains. The narrator of a Steve Adler TV ad says that as an Austin City Council member, Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. That statement is made against this visual backdrop:  Source: TV ad from Steve Adler, Austin mayoral candidate,Mike Martinez Record on City Council, posted online Dec. 2, 2014. Martinez has been a council member since June 2006. So its no surprise he would have had a say on taxes and rates charged by the city-owned utilities, though unsaid here is that no single council member controls any such decisions; its been a seven-member body, including the mayor. Martinez also chairs theeight-person boardoverseeing Capital Metro, which provides local bus and limited rail service. So he could have voted on fares charged the elderly. Lets recap Martinezs actions on fares, city taxes and utility rates. Bus fares To our inquiries, Adlers campaign didnt provide comprehensive backup for his ad claim. But by email, spokesman Jim Wick pointed out a September 2010Austin American-Statesmannews storystating the Cap Metro board voted to require bus riders 65 and older to pay 50 cents a ride or $15 for a 31-day bus pass, starting in 2011. The story also said the board was deciding to charge seniors and people with disabilities to ride buses for the first time since 1989. For Capital Metro, spokeswoman Francine Pares told us by email Martinez has been a board member since June 2007 and chairman since January 2010. Pares also confirmed the boards decision to charge the 50-cent fares, though she said that change was adopted at the boards November 2010 gathering, which Martinez didnt attend, she said. According tominutes of the Nov. 10, 2010, board meeting, the six members who were there unanimously approved a resolution authorizing higher fares in part, the resolution said, to generate additional operating revenues while striving to meet growing demand for transportation options. Martinez and another board member were recorded as absent. Pares told us theboard in September 2013approved another increase in senior fares, to 60 cents, effective in 2015. Generally, she said, senior citizens receive 50 percent off regular fares. By phone, Martinez agreed he and fellow board members agreed to charge the fares for elderly residents. But that happened, he said, only after a state panel issued marching orders including a recommendation calling for Capital Metro to raise more money from fares. In a 2010 report, the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended the authority charge a bus fare of 50 cents for groups currently riding free. The commission had said 30 percent of Capital Metros passengers were riding for free and, it noted, the board had rejected proposed fares in 2008 and 2009. In its finalJuly 2011 reporton Capital Metro, the commission said: While fare increases are difficult, requiring only a portion of its ridership to bear the burden of these increases is not equitable or sustainable, especially in bad financial times. Martinez pointed out the sunset review occurred in keeping withlegislation passed into lawby the 2009 Legislature, which wanted Capital Metro to get its finances in order. City taxes On taxes, Wick of Adlers camp offered as backup news stories indicating thatin 2009, Martinez said taxpayers would have to pay a little more in taxes and fees through 2010 to maintain services andin 2010, the council acting to raise the citys property tax rate from 42.09 cents per $100 of property value to 45.71 cents; the city tax on a median value home was expected to increase $52 to $843. Wick followed up by emailing us achart made by Adlers campaignindicating city property taxes on a median-valued home going up on Martinezs watch. For a non-campaign analysis, we turned to the Travis Central Appraisal District; the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, emailed us achartindicating city property taxes on a median-value homestead in 2007 were $715; in 2014, the comparable figure was $1,014. We converted the 2007 figure to 2014 dollars, using afederal inflation calculator. Upshot: Adjusted for inflation, city taxes on a median-value Austin homestead went up $278, or 34 percent, from 2007 through 2014, Martinezs council years. Over those years, according to the district, the median taxable value of an Austin homestead went from $177,257 to $228,032. Adjusting for inflation suggests there was a nearly $18,800, 9 percent, increase. Martinez agreed property owners paid more in taxes in his council tenure, results influenced by surging property values, he said. Still, he said, in five of eight years, council members voted to keep the citys property tax rate the same or to lower it. When the rate was raised, he said, the economy was in recession. For another fact check, the city provided this chart of tax rates, which shows the council raised the rate three times in Martinezs tenure, most recently for 2013,  but cut the rate four times, most recently for 2014. In September 2014, the council left the 2014 rate intact for 2015. Utility rates In 2011,we found Mostly Truea claim that Austin Energy, the city electric utility, was considering its first hike in rates since 1994. The base electric rate, covering staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, hadnt changed since 1994. Meantime, residential customers were paying less for electricity than they once had, taking inflation into account. On June 7, 2012, the council unanimously voted to raise the base rate, theAmerican-Statesmanreported. The news story said: The complicated new rate structure will hit customers in different ways; generally speaking, the larger and more energy-hungry the home, the higher the percentage increase, effective October 2012. A typical home, which uses an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month over the course of a year, will see its monthly bill rise by $8, to $113, according to Austin Energy calculations. A home that uses a lot of electricity would see its monthly bill increase by $59, to $332, the story said. How would Adler have voted? We asked Wick how Adler would have voted on the bus fares, tax and utility rate hikes we confirmed. Theres no simple answer, Wick said by email, but Adler favors free fares for senior citizens. Our ruling Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. Austin residents pay more in taxes and could be paying more for electricity thanks to council actions Martinez supported. He also backed a decision by the Capital Metro board to charge half fares to elderly bus riders who had previously not been charged, though Martinez hardly did this by himself; its worth clarifying, too, that Capital Metro was under pressure to improve its finances and that Martinez missed the vote creating the then-50-cent fare. We rate this statement 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 April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": meme In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not."  Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: re-posted   In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureau records show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.  records In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas.  income income As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact  an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont.  629 Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarks in order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: remarks Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.  One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. But...the reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here...So the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created.  ...Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced -- despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste -- is horrendous environmental policy...No reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.  There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas -- some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface -- is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality.  A video clip of his comments can be viewed here. here Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. passed Senate The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas.  Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit.  Associated Press According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year:  article Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas Representative Joe Barton introduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it.  The bill did not endorse a specific site  in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination  there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country).  Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: condemned What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas  a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca.  The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.  Hershey, Olive. "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: 'Drop Dead!'"
 The Texas Observer. 11 September 1998. Barton, Joe. "House Resolution 629 -- Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 U.S. House of Representatives/Congressional Record. 20 September 1998 U.S. House of Representatives. "Debate Transcript --Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 Congressional Record. 7 October 1997. Associated Press. "Texas Agency Denies Permit for Waste Site."
 New York Times/Associated Press. 23 October 1998. U.S. Senate. "Debate Transcript --The Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact."
 Congressional Record. 3 April 1998. Updated [16 June 2018]: Added comment from Bill Addison. Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance.  One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement.  "Auto industry breaking sales records"  Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph:   Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct  whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration  but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction.  Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael.  "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015."
 The Detroit News.  5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down."
 CNNMoney.  25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?"
  Politico.com.  9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief."
 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016.