Card for child support in Delaware.
On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention
FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.?   Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.   : WHAT'S  Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S   Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo.   Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins:  Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation  is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release  even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event.  Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published:  25 September 2015 On 25 May 2017, the South Texas Hunting AssociationFacebook page posted two images of a man holding an unusually large bullfrog: Facebook  Markcuz Rangel - Wanted to share a monster bull frog we got yesterday afternoon at one of our fishing ponds in South texas ranch located in Batesville tx 13lb monster frog!!! #stxha Although theSouth Texas Hunting Association claimed that this image showed a real 13pound bullfrog, we're skeptical about the creature'ssize. For one, 13 poundsis simply too big for a frog. AdultAmerican Bullfrogs, the largest frogs in the United States, only weigh about 1.5 pounds. The largest frog in the world, the Goliath Frog, is also too small to meet the requirements of this claim. The Goliath Frog, which has a relatively small habitat range in Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea(and not South Texas), only weighs about 7 pounds. American Bullfrogs Goliath Frog In addition to its exaggerated weight,we suspect this picture makes the frog appear larger than it actually is by using forced perspective. The hunter is most likely using a gig pole to hold the frog closer to the camera. This places the frog in the foreground, making it appear much larger in comparison to the man, now standing in the background. Photographs showing people "holding up" the Leaning Tower of Pisa are good examples of forced perspective photography. The man in the following image, for instance, is not nearly as tall as the famous Italian structure: image Chron.com that the image was real, but said that forced perspective was used to to make the frog appear unusually large: Chron.com "It's not as bigly as it appears," Lightfoot said video." [sic] [It's an] optical illusion created by extending frog toward the camera -- similar to what you see with fishermen holding up fish to make them appear larger. Still a big bullfrog, though." A very similar claim, featuring a very similar photograph, which used a very similar optical trick, was circulated in November 2015. That image purportedly showing a 42-pound bullfrogwas also fake. 42-pound bullfrog  Arkansas Frogs and Toads.  "American Bullfrog."   Retrieved 26 May 2017. American Museum of Natural History.  "Goliath Frog."   Retrieved 26 May 2017. Hlavaty, Craig.  "Giant Texas Bullfrog Photo is Real... But Don't be Fooled by What You See."   Houston Chronicle.  26 May 2017. Although the custom is sometimes more honored in the breach than in the observance, the U.S. Flag Code states that "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." Flag Code  Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism, Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama caused something of a stir in September 2007 when he was seemingly spotted not observing the hand-over-heart protocol during a playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at an Indianola, Iowa, steak fry attended by the six top Democratic presidential candidates: Boy, that's exactly who we need as President! Does this man not cross his heart when the National Anthem is playing, or when the flag is raised or lowered? OR, was this an accident on his part? Photo shows 4 of them, including the infamous Hillary... Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name). The article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE. How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?  The photograph itself is real, one of several images of the Iowa steak fry event published by Time, and shows then-Senator Barack Obama standing with his hands clasped just below his waist, while New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, New York senator Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin (wife of Iowa senator Tom Harkin) stand with their hands held over their hearts. It's difficult to establish context from a single still image, but other accounts (including ABC News video of the event) documented that the picture was as described: Time  (It's not clear from the photograph or the video just what the candidates were looking at. The Flag Code advises that they should be "standing at attention facing the flag," but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they're standing. Presumably another flag was in place off to the right of the platform, since most of the candidates were facing that direction.) As we noted earlier, although the U.S. Flag Code still specifies that those present should stand "with the right hand over the heart" during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, that particular form is one that has generally come to be observed less and less consistently among the general public over the decades: Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web. Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner. "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant." As for whether this incident was an "accident," whether Senator Obama habitually declines to perform the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there's any particular meaning to the (non-)action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded: "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." The senator himself said that "My grandfather taught me when I was two. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing." When television's Inside Edition ran a segment on this issue, they included some images (supplied by the Obama campaign) of the senator standing with his hand over his heart during other playings of the national anthem:   The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photograph claimed that Senator Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The following video clip shows Barack Obama reciting the Pledge during the opening of U.S. Senate sessions:  During the Democratic candidates' debate on 15 January 2008, Senator Obama directly refuted the three primary rumors about him that were then circulating via e-mail: that he is a Muslim, that he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance:  This item saw renewed interest in April 2017, when First Lady Melania Trump seemingly had to nudge her husband, President Donald Trump, to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem while celebrating the annual White House Easter Egg Roll:  A spoof article about Barack Obama's stance on the U.S. national anthem was later circulated via e-mail as a genuine statement the then-senator. spoof Adair, Bill.  "E-Mail Assailing Obama's Patriotism Misses Mark."
  St. Petersburg Times.  9 November 2007. Cornwell, Rupert.  "Obama Discovers Perils of Not Wearing His Patriotic Heart on His Sleeve."
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  25 October 2007. Halperin, Mark.  "Steak and Stump Speeches in Iowa."
  Time.  16 September 2007. Golab, Art and Abdon M. Pallasch.  "'I Decided I Won't Wear That Pin on My Chest'."
  Chicago Sun-Times.  5 October 2007. "Obama Captured on Tape Not Putting His Hand Over His Heart During the National Anthem."
  FOX News  (Hannity & Colmes).    23 October 2007. Aug. 26, 2020: Outdated video links have been updated. On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes.  The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds  In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content.  threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act."   While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here.  here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act.  The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation. 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 As of March 10, 2021, more than 95 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had been administered across the U.S. And, as jabs went into arms, misinformation regarding the immunization continued to spread across the internet. COVID-19 vaccine A number of social media users argued in March 2021 that life insurance providers could deny payout of a death benefit to beneficiaries if the policyholder died as a result of an experimental COVID-19 vaccination. number argued   The claim spread widely on Twitter but appeared to have originated on an unidentified social media platform shared in a group called Parler Refugees, presumably a forum for those who previously used Parler, a social media platform popular among the alt-right and conspiracy theorists. claim appeared This claim is false. The original post was shared by a user by the name of Tracey Wiggins, and was specific to Canada. In response to the misinformation being shared online, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. (CHLIA) issued a statement on March 8 declaring that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on individual or workplace coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance, including disability, nor will it have any effect on the ability to apply for future coverage. statement March 8 No one should be afraid and choose to not protect themselves from COVID-19 because they are worried about it affecting their benefits, said Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA. All of Canadas life and health insurers are supportive of Canadians receiving government-approved vaccinations to protect themselves from serious illness and death. The insurance lobbying group American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) spokesperson Jack Dolan also confirmed to Snopes in an email that receiving the COVID-19 immunization will have no effect on life insurance in the U.S.  and even in instances of experimental drugs, life insurers have to pay death claims. At the time of writing, three mRNA vaccines individually manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were being distributed in the U.S. All three vaccinations were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under an Emergency Use Authorization, which allows for new therapeutics to be administered during public health emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic. An experimental or investigational drug, on the other hand, is one that has not received approval from government regulatory authorities but has shown promise in treating a disease or medical condition, according to the FDA. Under this definition, the COVID-19 vaccine would not be considered an "experimental" drug.  Johnson & Johnson Moderna Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization FDA While COVID-19 vaccines are still being rigorously tested in broader-scale trials, health officials argue that the general safety and efficacy of the immunizations have warranted large-scale distribution. Snopes contacted the FDA and the National Institutes of Health for further clarification on the status of the three vaccines but did not receive a response in time for publication. We will update the article accordingly. As of March 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS "Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine," wrote the agency. "A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths." In some rare cases, health experts noted that some people experienced a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis after getting their COVID-19 vaccine  approximately two to five people per 1 million in the U.S. However, reports indicate that anaphylaxis nearly always occurs within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination and administrators will observe the vaccine recipient during this timeframe in the event that they need to respond.  anaphylaxis Correction [March 25, 2021]: A quote misattributed to a spokesperson for the organization is now correctly attributed to Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA. Now that hes a lame duck himself, Republican Gov.Scott Walkersupports taking major actions during a lame-duck session of the Wisconsin Legislature  aFull Flopfrom theposition he tookwhen he was first elected in 2010. As he enters his final weeks in office, the two-term governorhas signaledthat he generally supportsbills adoptedby the GOP-controlled Legislature that wouldweaken the powersof Gov.-electTony Evers, who defeated Walker in the November 2018 election, and incoming Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats. There are also measures that would limit early voting, put lawmakers in charge of litigation aimed at overturning the federal Affordable Care Act and give Republicans more control over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the state jobs agency. The Legislatures lame-duck bills and Walkers change in position havemadenationalnews. Theyve also drawnthreats of legal actionby liberals andcriticism fromprominent Republicanscalling the move apower graband urging Walker not to sign the bills. On Dec. 9, 2018, four days after the measures won approval from the Legislature during an overnight session, Evers appeared onNBCs Meet the Press.He repeated his call for Walker to veto the lame-duck bills, saying: The entire thing is a mess, its a hot mess, and I believe that he should veto the entire package. In fact, at least three or four of the pieces that are in there now, he has vetoed previously. And so, it makes no sense to me. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc. So, are there three or four provisions in the legislation Walker is now considering that he has vetoed previously? Yes, although they are on more arcane measures, not the ones that have generated the recent controversy. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, a nonpartisan state agency, identified four provisions in the lame-duck legislation that are similar to four measures Walker vetoed in September 2017 in the 2017-19 state budget. That information was requested from the bureau by the office of state Rep.Peter Barca, D-Kenosha. Barcas office then produceda memoon the similarities. That memo was cited to us by Evers spokeswoman as evidence to back Evers claim. We also revieweda memoon the lame-duck legislation by the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, another nonpartisan state agency. What we found is that the lame-duck legislation does contain some provisions that are the same -- or similar to -- provisions Walker previously vetoed. But those provisions arent the ones in the lame-duck legislation that have caused the big headlines. Heres a look: Walker 2017 veto 2018 GOP lame-duck legislation Effect Veto allowed transfer of funds by Department of Transportation between state highway programs   without legislative oversight. Legislation would repeal altogether DOT's authority totransfer state funds between state highway program components. Less flexibility for Evers administration than Walkers administration. Veto deleted requirement that Department of Administration do annual report on statesself-funded portalfor consolidating accounting, budget and other services. Would require the annual report. Imposes requirement on Evers administration that Walker administration did not want to do. Veto deleted requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs receive approval from Legislatures Joint Finance Committee before transferring money for state veterans homes to veterans trust fund. Would require  department to notify the committee of any transfers. Walker vetoed the measure because it would have encroached on the executive branchs responsibility to manage state agency programs. The requirement is more of a burden on Evers, given that the Joint Finance Committee is majority Republican. Veto deleted requirement that Department of Health Services submit report to Legislatures Joint Finance Committee on Walker initiative to require childless adults to work or get work training in order to receive Medicaid. Veto also eliminated  requirement that the Joint Finance Committee give approval before the work/work training requirement could be implemented. Legislation would codify into law the work and work training requirement. Without codifying the initiative into law, Evers administration could have made adjustments to the program; with new legislation, Evers administration would need approval from Joint Finance Committee or full Legislature. Evers said, At least three or four of the pieces that are in in the Republican lame-duck legislation, Walker has vetoed previously. There are four provisions in the lame-duck bills that Walker has vetoed previously and that would put new requirements or restrictions on the incoming Evers administration. But those provisions arent the major ones in the lame-duck session that have generated so much controversy and threats of lawsuits. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently complained that corporate taxes are too high and discourage economic expansion.The tax on job-creating businesses in the United States is 35 percent, second worst in the entire world, he said during a June 14 news conference at which he unveiled his Blueprint for Americas Comeback..We wondered if the U.S. really is No.2 in the world when it comes to high corporate taxes and asked for the source of Allens information.Katie Wright, spokeswoman for Allens campaign, pointed to a March 8, 2011,reportfrom the right-leaning Tax Foundation. It indeed showed that the U.S. had the second highest total corporate tax rate among industrialized and emerging nations. Only Japan placed higher levies on business profits.But taxes are a complicated subject, and Allens claim needs elaboration.Eric Toder, co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, noted most corporate income is taxed at the top U.S. federal rate of 35 percent, which Allen cited. The tax applies to American companies doing business here and abroad as well as to profits earned in the U.S. by affiliates of foreign companies.Allen understates his argument when he says the 35 percent federal corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Actually, it outstrips Japan and is the highest national rate among nearly three dozen industrialized democracies, according to 2011 data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.But national tax rates on companies dont tell the whole story.When looking at how the U.S. corporate tax liability compares to other countries, analysts usually  examine a combination of federal and state corporate income tax rates.By that measure, the combined average corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent this year, according to the OECD. Among industrialized democracies, only Japans combined corporate rate of 39.5 percent is higher.Japan had planned to lower its corporate tax rate by 5 percent on April 1. But it delayed making the cut after a disastrous earthquake and tsunami struck in March.The OECD report only discusses statutory corporate tax rates. It does not address deductions and credits companies can claim in various countries to lower their liabilities. These loopholes produce an effective tax rate - the percentage of profits companies actually pay in levies.The World Bank published a report last November containing the effective corporate tax rates of 183 nations. The U.S. had an effective corporate tax rate of 27.6 percent, according to the study, which is still pretty high. Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand had higher effective tax rates on corporate profits.Allen, during his news conference, said he would like to lower the 35 percent national corporate tax rate to 20 percent and eliminate loopholes.Lets sum up:Allen said the U.S. corporate income tax of 35 percent is the second highest in the world.The national rate of 35 percent is actually the highest among democratic industrial nations. The U.S. combined corporate tax rate -- the average total of state and national levies on business profits -- is 39.2 and ranks second among industrialized democracies.So Allen is a smidgen off on tax rates, rankings and definitions. We rate his claim Mostly True. On 2 January 2017, the "USA Today News" web site reported that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter Ronda Rousey had been discovered dead in her home following a routine wellness check: reported On the morning of January 2, 2017, Ronda Rousey was found in a bathtub in her Venice residence, dead. Despite an immediate medical response, EMTs were unable to revive her. The cause of death is still unknown, however a preliminary autopsy has been confirmed to be underway. First responders told us that they discovered what appeared to be a needle used for drugs, as well as a bag of an ambiguous powdered substance. While no drug use has been substantiated, her mother had previously spoken to the media about Rouseys previous depression & drug abuse. Rouseys mother had this to say, All of those who have criticized Ronda for taking a loss so to heart, for not just shrugging it off dont understand that what made Ronda so successful is that she cares DEEPLY about winning to an extent that I dont believe the average person can wrap his/her head around. After her last fight, where she lost to Amanda Nunes in less than one minute, Rousey went silent  no one has heard a thing from her on social media, or from interviews. Her whereabouts and status were completely unknown to the public until this tragic happening was uncovered by two police officers discovered her body on a wellness check. However, the report that Ronda Rousey was found dead on 2 January 2017 was merely fake news that appeared solely on the fly-by-night "USA Today News" web site and was reported neither by the legitimate USA Today news outlet nor any other credible source. "USA Today News" in no way resembles the actual USA Today web site:    The "USA Today News" article included an image of a large law enforcement presence in a residential neighborhood, a picture that appeared to come from a blog devoted to the television show House and did not depict any real event involving Ronda Rousey. blog One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017.