Was it Donald Trump who airlifted stranded troops using his personal aircraft?
In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991.
On March 3, 2021, conservative media outlet The Washington Times reported that U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said new metal detectors designed to keep lawmakers safe following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection were a form of voter suppression.  The Washington Times U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene voter suppression   First, some context: Capitol maintenance crews installed the machines to screen people entering House chambers after the deadly insurrection. Since then, most House members used the metal detectors regularly without questions, The Associated Press reported. But some Republicans initially sidestepped the devices or refused to be checked with wands after they set them off.  deadly insurrection The Associated Press "Capitol Police have now placed desks and velvet ropes near the metal detectors to block anyone from walking around the machines," the AP reported on Jan. 22. Now, let us address the claim that Greene, a far-right conspiratorialist, compared the safety measure to nefarious schemes by partisan groups to prevent people from voting in U.S. elections. According to CSPAN's video recording of congressional proceedings on March 2, the representative indeed said the practice of standing in "long lines to enter the chamber" to use the metal detectors was "real voter suppression" in her opinion. She made the statement during a debate over legislation to change campaign-finance and voting laws on (read bill H.R. 1 here). CSPAN's video recording here Here's Greene's full quote, according to the video footage: I rise in opposition to H.R. 1. While we are talking about voter suppression and long lines, there is real voter suppression that happens right here in Congress. Many members of Congress have to stand in long lines to enter the chamber going through metal detectors, emptying our pockets, and being treated very disrespectfully. So that is real suppression, and it's a shame it happens right here on the House floor. Standing in line to vote is not voter suppression  it's just part of the voting process, just like people stand in line to buy groceries at the grocery store.  Voters in a northwestern region of Georgia in November 2020 elected Greene to represent them, and she began her term in Washington, D.C., in January 2021. During her campaign and afterwards, she embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory and advocated on the frontlines of former President Donald Trump's misinformation campaign to try to convince voters that Joe Biden won the presidency using illegal methods. See our fact checks regarding that false claim here. QAnon conspiracy theory President Donald Trump here Claim:  An Indiana Congressman is introducing legislation to change the name of Interstate 69. Status:  False. Example:  [Hoosier Gazette, 2004] John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number. There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years.  While most believe this highway will be good for the states economy, religious conservatives believe "I-69" sounds too risqu and want to change the interstates number. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Despite   the disclaimer on the site of the Hoosier Gazette, a number of its satirical articles have been mistaken for real news (such as a report that a Kinsey Institute study found that having children lowers the IQ of parents).   disclaimer Hoosier Gazette report Now yet another entry from the Hoosier Gazette has made the news, this one proclaiming that Indiana Congressman John Hostettler is attempting to introduce legislation to rename Interstate 69 (because the pronunciation of its common abbreviation, I-69, sounds like a slang term for a sexual position).  The spoof has caused no small amount of consternation at Congressman Hostettler's office, where aides have been kept busy handling calls about the fictional legislation: entry John Hostettler Interstate 69 sexual position U.S. Rep. John Hostettler's office is fielding outraged calls about an Internet hoax that says he's proposed changing the name of Interstate 69 to Interstate 63 for religious reasons.  Hostettler spokesman Michael Jahr said Monday he had been fielding calls about the story all day.  "There is no truth in the story about any legislation changing the name of I-69," he said. "The Web site is satirical in nature, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd." The Hoosier Gazette has also published a sampling of responses to their I-69 article, many of them submitted by readers who didn't get the joke. responses Last updated:  21 November 2004    Sources:   Wehrman, Jessica.  "Hostettler's Office Fields Hoax Calls."   Evansville Courier & Press.  16 November 2004. Some coal country voters see Hillary Clinton as a threat, someone who would install regulations that would hurt rather than help the struggling coal industry. But Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, told CNNs Anderson Cooper that she thinks it's necessary to move away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy, and she wants to do what she can to help current coal mine workers make that transition. But the market is making this decision, she said May 4. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. So what I'm offering is a $30 billion plan to really revitalize coal country, to provide support for coal miners and their families, and I think that is the least the country owes these brave people. Coal has historically been the countrys primary electricity generator. But several major coal companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy. We decided to dig into the question of how much of that change is due solely to market forces, rather than environmental regulation. We talked to coal industry experts who told us that the primary forces working against coal are market-based, notably the growth of natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper alternative. But now that coal is vulnerable, environmental regulations may seal coals demise. Coal has always been able to absorb new regulations, said Robert Godby, a professor and expert in energy economics at the University of Wyoming. But the impact natural gas has had since the fracking boom has been amazing to watch. He added: This would all still be happening regardless of regulations. Natural gas is eating coals lunch, and the coal companies made a bad bet on Chinese demand. Coalused to generateabout 50 percent of electricity in the United States, but now its down to about 30 percent. Just in the past couple years, natural gas has begun todisplacecoal. (In this Energy Information Administration chart, the grey line represents coal, and the orange line represents natural gas.) A recent boom inhydraulic fracturing(fracking) in the United States has dramatically increased the availability of natural gas. Natural gasprices are low, and it produces abouthalf as much carbon. Consequently, demand for natural gas is going up, and demand for coal is going down, and fast. While natural gas is the main threat, a growing demand and diminishing costs for renewable energy, like wind and solar power, also takes away from coal demand, said West Virginia University law professor Patrick McGinley. He added that on top of all this, its getting harder to produce cheap coal in the Appalachia region because a century of mining has depleted supply, and so the costs of mining new coal are going up. This is all a huge problem for coal, because electricity is about 90 percent of the coal market, said Andy Roberts, research director for global thermal coal markets at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. He said the trend is unlikely to reverse. But it was a big, failed bet on the international coal market that ultimately pushed companies to a point where they couldnt pay off their debts, forcing them to file for bankruptcy reorganization. About five years ago, the big coal companies   Arch, Alpha and Peabody  took out massive loans to invest in metallurgical coal, a type found in the Appalachia region. They thought fast-growing Asian countries, particularly China, would want the coal to facilitate economic development. But Chinas growth slowed, and the demand never materialized. The companies have been unable to pay back their debts on this project, and thats what sent them into bankruptcy, Godby said. Regulations may make electricity companies apprehensive about investing in coal down the line. This is the best way to think about how environmental regulations affect coal: If youre an electricity company considering building a new coal-powered plant or rehabilitating an outdated one, youre already on the fence about whether thats a good investment, because of the threat of natural gas. But then you remember you might have to face strict carbon emission limitations down the line, which convinces you to go with a natural gas plant instead of a coal plant. Take President Barack Obamas Clean Power Plan, a major initiative that would affect coal-powered plants by reducing carbon emissions. It isnt in effect yet, and it faces court hurdles. Even so, the uncertainty of what kinds of carbon limitations coal plants will face, and the possibility that they could be significant, has already reduced coal plant investment, Roberts said. So, investment in coal plants is now basically nil, Roberts said. And when the CPP begins in earnest in 2022, coal demand, already suffering, will more rapidly and inexorably decline. Similarly, the2015 Mercury and Air Toxics Standardsis a federal regulation that has had a significant impact on the coal industry and contributed to coal-powered plant closures. But its impossible to tell how much of the changes in the coal market can be attributed solely to the regulations, rather than the regulations plus the market forces. Multiple experts we asked said that so far, its primarily been the market putting pressure on coal. But looking toward the future, as coal becomes more vulnerable and environmental rules get bigger, regulations may play a larger role. Yes, as Secretary Clinton notes, the market is sorting this out, Roberts said. Competitive natural gas, the market, does indeed have something to do with that. But so do the CPP and federal subsidies for renewable generation. The combination of all these elements has been toxic for coal companies and lethal for those with too much debt. In reality, the market for coal is partially economic but increasingly regulatory. In October,Appalachian Power President Charles Patton saidcoal power wont be able to rebound with or without the Clean Power Plan  the economics just dont make sense. Our ruling Clinton said, The market is making this decision. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. Economic forces on both the national and international markets are the main reason coals prominence in the American energy sector is now vulnerable, forcing coal-burning plant closures and several high-profile bankruptcies. For a long time, coal has been impervious to government regulation. But more recently, regulations  a non-economic force  might be the straw that breaks the camels back, especially going forward now that coal is on shaky ground. Clintons claim is missing this important context, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Oprah Winfrey said that restaurant customers need not tip their servers more than 10%..  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Did Oprah Winfrey state that, in this economy, tipping 10% is acceptable? Origins:  Leaving a relatively substantial monetary tip for the waitstaff at the conclusion of a restaurant meal is the custom in some countries, including the U.S. and Canada. A gratuity amounting to 15% to 20% of the bill is now considered the standard or minimum tip, with even more left in recognition of superlative service. It is therefore little cause for surprise that any cultural icon's public voicing of an opinion that folks should leave no more than a 10% tip would raise the hackles of many in the service industry.  And so it was with the belief that Oprah Winfrey, beloved television talk show host, had instructed members of her audience to not leave more than a 10% tip when dining in restaurants, with such rumor often coupled with a further assertion that this advice was offered in recognition of the recession's having hit everyone hard. Such belief that Oprah had said it fit  well with a widely-held stereotype that African American customers tip less than do other restaurant patrons. In September 2009 a page on the social networking site Facebook raised the false "Oprah said not to tip more than 10%" claim. Titled "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments," the group stated as its purpose:  Against Oprah Winfrey has recently stated on her TV show that it is acceptable to tip servers 10% in our current economy. This group is being put together to show Oprah that her comments have a crippling affect on servers all over the world. As of 4 November 2009, "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments" has 37,228 members. Yet the claim that has inflamed so many is false. There is no evidence in support of the assertion that Oprah Winfrey recommended her audience tip waitstaff 10%, in response to economic recession or otherwise, on her television show or in her magazine. No one has yet to turn up a video clip from her show of her supposed  tipping advice or produce a copy of an article from  O, The Oprah Magazine in which such counsel was allegedly given.  Instead, material from both those venues state that restaurant goers should tip at least 15%. While we've yet to locate a video clip or news report of Oprah herself instructing the audience to pony up with 15% or better, there are examples of invited guests on her show or columnists in her magazine saying exactly that. In the "Ending Rudeness" segment of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which aired on 9 September 2008), Steven Dublanica, author of Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip  Confessions of a Cynical Waiter, sat beside Oprah and, with her nodding in agreement, offered this bit of advice for restaurant goers: Rudeness Don't tip less than 15 percent Waiters are paid wages well below the minimum wage  as little as $2.15 an hour in some states  with the expectation that they will earn the majority of their income through tips. In addition, some restaurants require waiters to pay around 20 to 30 percent of their tips to food runners, hostesses and bartenders.  "If you don't tip, then that person doesn't get paid," Steven says. "Literally." Of the "10 Do's and Don'ts of Restaurant Etiquette" proffered by The Oprah Winfrey Show via oprah.com, its official web site, the first is "Tip 15 percent or more." first Likewise, the "Guide to Tipping" published in the December 2002 issue of  O, The Oprah Magazine says:  Guide to Tipping Normally, 15 to 20 percent of the total bill  20 percent for a first-class place. Note that people tip more in urban areas. According to the Zagat Survey, the average gratuity in city restaurants across the United States is about 18 percent. In response to the rumor, HarpoBear (moderator of oprah.com's message board) posted a clarificationon 8 June 2009 (and repeated periodically since then) that said: posted We'd like to respond to the concerns raised about Oprah's thoughts on tipping. The truth is that Oprah has never said that people should tip less during the recession. She believes in generously compensating waiters and waitresses. While a November 2009 Facebook page marked a resurgence of the Oprah rumor, it wasn't the first time the claim had been bruited on that venue: In December 2008 a now defunct Facebook group titled "No, Oprah, it's not OK to tip 10%" repeated the gossip. The rumor comes in two forms: that Oprah herself directed her audience never to tip more than 10% or (far less frequently) that one of her guests did. One name that has been mentioned as the identity of the guest who gave such advice is financial guru Suze Orman, as in this 19 September 2009 blog entry:  Suze Orman blog entry It has been brought to my attention that Suze Orman went onto the Oprah Winfrey show some time ago to give some sound financial advice to all the Oprah-ites who bow down to the feet of the great and powerful O. [...] She said that when it comes time to tip you should just leave 10% instead of 15%. Barbara "the ten percent dissolution" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 November 2009    Day Owen, Sarah.  "Servers at Restaurants See Dropoff in Gratuities."   Augusta Chronicle.  19 December 2008.    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. Quarterly GDP numbers arent the sexiest item in political news, but when the latest state-level updates were released Thursday  for the third quarter of 2015, which ended Sept. 30  Gov. Pat McCrory trumpeted them on both his official and campaign websites and social media pages. McCrory has dubbed his re-election campaign the Carolina Comeback, trying to focus on good economic news. He said these numbers show North Carolina is squarely on the upswing. A states GDP, or gross domestic product, is the total of all goods and services it produces. And McCrory said that since he took office, no state has increased its gross domestic product faster than North Carolina. He credited the states cuts to the income tax rate and unemployment benefits, and the outsourcing of economic development efforts. He also clarified that he was talking about the numbers since January 2013. We have delivered $4.4 billion in tax relief, fixed our broken unemployment insurance system and reformed our economic development strategy to strengthen North Carolinas economy and put more people back to work, McCrory said in a statement. These efforts have positioned North Carolina as one of the fastest growing populations as well as (the) fastest growing economy in the country. Economies are subject to a number of influences. For this fact check, we wont attempt to say what has or hasnt been responsible for the states economic growth. Instead, we will look just at whether its true that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations as well as fastest growing economy in the country, as McCrory claimed. Population growth Between July 1, 2013  shortly after McCrory took office  and July 1, 2015, North Carolina added about 194,000 people for a total population of 10,043,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Thats close to a 2 percent growth rate and slightly better than the national average over that period. From 2013 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2015, five states added more people than North Carolina. Both years, North Carolina was the ninth largest state. North Carolina isnt adding people at the countrys fastest rate, or by the largest amounts. But it has a better-than-average growth rate, and its on pace tocontinue closing the gapwith larger states. McCrory is correct that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. Economic growth This question is a little trickier. Has North Carolina had the fastest-growing economy in the country under Pat McCrorys administration? There are many ways to measure economic strength, and North Carolina is not the best in every measure, according to the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Economic Analysis. For instance, in 2015, the state was 13th in total income and 39th in per-capita income. From 2013 to 2015 North Carolina also had the 19th-fastest growth in per-capita income and the 11th-fastest growth in total income. North Carolinas unemployment and underemployment rates are also both above the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But McCrory specifically referenced GDP growth. For that reason, and because GDP is generally considered the most comprehensive measure of an economys strength, well look only at GDP growth for the sake of this fact check. And on that, McCrory is right that North Carolina is No. 1. Between the first quarter of 2013 and the third quarter of 2015 (the most recent data we have), no states economic output grew as fast as North Carolinas 13.4 percent rate. Florida and California came close, at 13.3 and 13.2 percent GDP growth, respectively. The average for both the Southeast and the United States as a whole was 9.9 percent. Because economists love to do math, there are other ways of defining the same data over the same period. That 13.4 percent rate specifically refers to current (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis also measures GDPs compound growth rate in current dollars and chained dollars. Chaining is a process that adjusts for inflation, but by using different methods from the more common Consumer Price Index. In that measure, North Carolina tied for first in current dollar amounts and tied for seventh in chained dollar amounts. Its also worth noting that right now were partway through the second quarter of 2016, so the data are lagging behind real time by nearly six months. So while we don't know who currently has the fastest-growing economy, the data does show that North Carolinas growth hasnt been as dominant recently. Looking just from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015  the most recent numbers available  North Carolinas GDP grew by 2.8 percent. Thats lower than 10 other states and tied with another seven. Its good, but not the best. Our ruling McCrory is right that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. As for the economy, North Carolina did have the fastest-growing GDP in the country between the first quarter of 2013, when McCrory took office, and the third quarter of 2015. The pace has slowed recently, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement. We rate this claim True. Claim:  The FBI's "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads" is sending out automated warning messages via e-mail.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Subject: You use illegal File Sharing... Ladies and Gentlemen, Downloading of Movies, MP3s and Software is illegal and punishable bylaw. We hereby inform you that your computer was scanned under the IP 94.195.57.211. The contents of your computer were confiscated as an evidence, and you will be indicated. In the next days you will receive the charge in writing. In the Reference code: #34510, are all files, that we found on your computer. The sender address of this mail was masked, to protect us against mail bombs. - You get more detailed information by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -FBI-- Department for "Illegal Internet Downloads", Room 7350- 935 Pennsylvania Avenue- Washington, DC 20535, USA- (202) 324-3000 Origins:  The address and phone number given at the foot of the message quoted above are real (they belong to the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters), but that's the only thing genuine about this e-mail. headquarters The FBI may have an interest in tracking illegal downloads of copyright-protected material on the Internet, but they don't have a "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads," and they aren't sending out automated messages like the one quoted above to serve notice that "your computer was scanned" and the "contents of your computer were confiscated."  If nothing else, the poor grammar and spelling  "an evidence" rather than "evidence";  "indicated" rather than "indicted"  should be an obvious giveaway that the message is a phony, and likely crafted by a non-native speaker of English. (The latter point is probably confirmed by the fact that similar messages stemming from the same source are sent out with subject lines in German.) The FBI has issued the following denial: denial Attention  FBI e-mail hoax alert! Have you recently received an e-mail, purportedly from the FBI, with the subject "Your IP was logged," warning you about illegal downloading of movies and software and saying you are under FBI investigation? If you have, please be advised that the e-mail is a fake  the Bureau, even though it does investigative violations of Intellectual Property laws, does not investigate or notify persons under investigation as outlined in the e-mail. It may also contain a virus. If you've received the e-mail, please contact the FBI at www.ifccfbi.gov. This message (which also arrives with subject lines such as "Preliminary investigation were started" [sic] and "Your IP was logged" is actually a carrier for an executable attachment which harbors the Sober.C virus, a mass-mailing worm that affects systems running any version of Microsoft Windows (other than Windows 3.x).  When activated for the first time on a target PC, the worm displays a fake error message similar to the following: Sober.C  Symantec offers a removal tool for Sober.C on its web site. removal tool Last updated:  29 October 2007    Sources:   Varghese, Sam.   "Invoking the FBI to Spread Malware."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  6 January 2004. Claim:   Video clip shows Tacoma  housing development "built for illegal immigrants" who are receiving "refugee pay."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] I want to move to Tacoma.. to the good life!  Here is a development in Tacoma WA (Salishan) that was built for Illegal Immigrants! 1325 Homes created! Refugee Pay offers them $2642 per month in SSI benefits, plus Food Stamps, plus Section 8 Housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn't you like to get a free ride like the illegals?  Origins:  As noted by Kathleen Merryman of the Tacoma News Tribune the video clip linked above about the Salishan housing development on Tacoma's East Side has garnered a good deal of attention for that community: William B. Mount is going viral on Salishan. The Tacoman once used public access television to air his world view, and now posts videos on YouTube. About five months ago, he and a woman named Jane drove through Salishan on Tacoma's East Side with a video camera and a big box of misinformation. They delivered a 10-minute commentary on the mixed use and mixed-income redevelopment of the worn-out public housing site and posted it on the video sharing site. The stew of untruths simmered there. It's at a boil now. Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma City Council members are getting e-mails from people hot over what he calls misuse of Social Security funds. As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false: analysis  Claim: "What you are looking at is a $225 million complex, $225 million complex, of housing out of the Social Security budget for 1,300 units." False: No Social Security funds were used to redevelop Salishan. Claim: "All welfare housing. All Social Security housing for foreigners will get $2,642 a month. All of that comes out of the Social Security budget."  False: Of Salishan's renters, 97 percent are citizens of the United States, according to THA Executive Director Michael Mirra. "We know of no government program that pays $2,642 per month to foreigners," Mirra said. Claim: "The average income in here is about $13,000 per year, not including welfare, not including Social Security refugee pay, not including Women, Infants and Children."  False: The $13,000 figure is based on out-of-date 2000 Census data. As for the other sources, Mirra said: "We do not know of anyone who gets something called 'Social Security refugee pay.'"  Claim: "This school was built by Tacoma specifically to house foreigners and welfare recipients."  False. Lister Elementary School does not "house" any foreigners or welfare recipients.  Claim: "They mollycoddle these foreigners who come across the border illegally."  False. THA does not rent to people who are in this country illegally, and 97 percent of Salishan residents are U.S. citizens.  Claim: "And they don't pay taxes. This housing is free if you are on Social Security refugee pay."  False. Anyone who buys non-food goods and services in Washington State pays sales tax, and every Salishan household with earned income is subject to federal income taxes. Every Salishan rental household with an income pays rent. For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video. debunking Last updated:  28 July 2011 Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume:  This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads  you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair  I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers  you didnt have any water, so you  the people that do the dishes  you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places  in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better  and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here:  Picheta, Rob et al.  "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'"
  CNN.  7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara.  "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)."
  NPR.  27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov.  "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans."
  16 July 2020.