Did Israel-Hamas War Protester Aaron Bushnell Post Antisemitic Comments on Reddit?
The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback According to some posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), a Reddit account supposedly used by Aaron Bushnell, the U.S. Air Force member who died in February 2024 after lighting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., contained blatantly antisemitic comments. some posts on X These posts used a supposed screenshot ofa comment attributed to Bushnell, which read "Palestine will be free when all the jews are dead," to question his motives for carrying out his protest. These posts  (@TheHarrisSultan / X) This was not a real comment posted by "acebush1," the handle Bushnell allegedly used on Reddit, and cannot be attributed to Bushnell. On Feb. 25, 2024, just before 1 p.m. Eastern time, Bushnell went live on the video streaming platform Twitch. Dressed incombat fatigues, he walked up to the gate of the Israeli embassy, set his phone down so it would capture his actions, poured a liquid accelerant over his head out of a metal thermos, put on his cap and lit himself on fire. lit himself on fire While walking toward the embassy, Bushnell did provide a brief explanation for his action. "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," he explained to the camera. "I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal." As Bushnell lit himself on fire, he began repeatedly shouting "Free Palestine," interrupted by loud screams of pain. A censored version of the video, posted to X by independent journalist Talia Jane with permission from Bushnell's loved ones, can be viewed here. (Because the video, even censored, is very disturbing, Snopes has elected to only provide a link in lieu of embedding the footage.) Talia Jane here As the news of the act spread, various news outlets and individuals began investigating Bushnell's online presence. By using a since-deleted post on Bushnell's Facebook page that linked to his Twitch account, The Intercept was able to identify one of Bushnell's long-term usernames online: "acebush1." This is the username Bushnell supposedly used to post the antisemitic comment to Reddit. The Intercept We started by investigating who owns/owned the "acebush1" Reddit account, and we came to the same conclusion: It does appear to be owned by Bushnell. The posting history of the now-suspended account contains plenty of references to the Air Force and a confirmation that the user was an active-duty member. It also contains a lot of posts supporting leftist, mainly anarchist, viewpoints. The presence of those political views further solidifies the connection between the account and Bushnell, who, according to the BBC, sent emails to left-wing and anarchist news sites earlier that day alerting them to his planned protest. Finally, we cross-checked the "acebush1" username across other platforms and discovered that the Instagram account with that username, which was created in April 2018, also belonged to Aaron Bushnell. posting history BBC Instagram Next, we attempted to verify whether there was a comment made on Bushnell's Reddit account that matched the screenshots we saw on X. This process was complicated by the fact that many of Bushnell's Reddit posts had been deleted. However, by going to the "acebush1" user profile directly, Bushnell's comment history was still visible. According to the screenshots on X, the post in question was made "2 months ago." acebush1 We looked at all comments from the account that were posted between one month and three months ago just to be sure we would catch the comment in question. It wasn't there. We double-checked this using PullPush, a website that allows you to view the contents of deleted Reddit comments. Nothing matched the screenshot. We reverse image searched the photo of the supposed post on TinEye and Google and looked through those links to see if anyone could provide a link to the original comment. Again, nothing. PullPush TinEye Google In fact, according to athread posted to X(archived) by Talia Jane, the screenshot's original poster "got it from a friend." In conclusion, there is absolutely zero evidence for the claim besides the one screenshot of the supposed post shared on X. As such, we rate this claim "Fake." posted to X archived Some online have claimed that to rationalize his actions, Bushnell must have been mentally unstable. The history of self-immolation does not necessarily support that claim. According to Time magazine, self-immolation as an act of protest dates back centuries, as far back as an old Hindu practice of ritual suicide called sati and Catholic persecution during the Roman Empire. It was brought to international attention when photojournalist Malcolm Browne captured the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc while he was actively burning in 1963. In the years that followed, several American citizens set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. Some Time sati Thich Quang Duc several American citizens More recently, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in 2010 directly started the Tunisian Revolution and is credited as one of the main causes of the Arab Spring. In the United States, multiple people have self-immolated to protest inaction against climate change, first in 2018, then in2020, then in2022. Bushnell became the second American to do so in protest of Israeli military action in Gaza, following an unidentified personwho self-immolated outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta on Dec. 1, 2023. Mohamed Bouazizi's 2018 2020 2022 unidentified person
A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked "from day one" in the White House to drive down American unemployment to "record" low levels  evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's "pro-growth agenda" was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. news release Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: reiterated   About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that "50 year" claim and said his administration is responsible for the "best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country." He tweeted: tweeted   The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he "has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln," and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. claimed After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers.   This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim  that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever  we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate  the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed  in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the "Current Population Survey." Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. Bureau of Labor Statistics According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) The survey   Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the "the lowest level in more than 50 years" under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term  Jan. 20, 2017  to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.)  Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5%  the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet  that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed)  was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. Trump was correct According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that "an unusually large number of people in their prime working years" were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. BBC economists' analysis Federal Reserve System's board of governors CBS News We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: were true technically ended But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim  that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs  accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit.   Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office  the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. "At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend," economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. told MSNBC In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: NBC News The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. Thats not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but its hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: labor statistics by NPR So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch  including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth  broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate  but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data  we rate this claim "false." per economists BBC News. "US Jobless Rate At Lowest Since 1969."  3 May 2019. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."  Accessed 13 October 2020. Wingfield, Brian. "The End of the Great Recession? Hardly."  Forbes. 20 September 2010. Jones, Chuck. "Trump's Economic Scorecard: 3 Years In Office."  Forbes. 10 February 2020. Horsley, Scott. "FACT CHECK: Who Gets Credit For The Booming U.S. Economy."  NPR. 12 September 2018. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Which President Gets The Credit For The Booming Economy?"  MSNBC. 10 September 2018. In mid-October 2018, singer-songwriter Michael Bubl defused speculation generated by a newspaper interview that he would be bringing his career to a close. Bubl took a two-year hiatus from recording in the wake of his firstborn son Noah's October 2016 cancer diagnosis.  During an interview published in the Daily Mail's weekend magazine on 13 October 2018 that touched on the end of that hiatus, Bubl explained his reasons for recording his forthcoming new album in the wake of his son's battle with cancer -- and seemingly announced his retirement from the music world in a story hyperbolically headlined ""Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview": published "One, because I felt a debt of gratitude, deeper than I can explain, to the millions of people all over the world who prayed for us and showed us compassion. That gave me faith in humanity.  "Two, because I love music and feel I can continue the legacy of my idols. And three, because if the world was ending -- not just my own personal hell but watching the political turmoil in America and watching Europe break up -- theres never a better time for music." Then suddenly he stops. "This is my last interview," he says quite solemnly. "I'm retiring from the business. I've made the perfect record and now I can leave at the very top." But a few days later a spokesperson for Bubl told NBC's Today Show that "He is NOT retiring. Definitely not." told Perhaps Bubl's comments about having given his "last interview" and "retiring from the business" were meant to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that was misunderstood or didn't come across in print, as Today suggested: Given Bubl's sense of humor, we detect a little sarcasm in his self-praise and retirement talk. At least that's the theory TODAY's Savannah Guthrie is subscribing to. "You know, he's a pretty funny guy," she said when the topic came up on the show. "Maybe he just saying (his new album) is so good, I retire!" The Canadian singer and songwriter himself also dismissed the Mail's report during a subsequent interview: dismissed After stepping back into the spotlight following a 2-year hiatus, it seemed like a strange time for Bubl to announce his departure. Fortunately, his rep calmed fans' fears, telling E! News in a statement that plans of his retirement are "not true at all." As further reassurance, the 43-year-old father of three put the speculation to rest in a new interview with SiriusXM's Fantasy Sports Radio. "Just consider the source -- that's all I say to people," he told co-hosts Mike Dempsey and Bob Harris. "My buddies wrote me. I said, 'Look at who said it.' C'mon, are you kidding me? I need the money. I'm not going anywhere." Bubl's new album, Love, is scheduled to be released on 16 November 2018.  Storey, Katie.  "Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview."
  Daily Mail.  13 October 2018. Hines, Ree.  "Michael Bubl Is 'Definitely Not' Retiring Following Son's Cancer Battle."
  The Today Show.  15 October 2018. Hautman, Nicholas.  "Michael Buble Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'I Need the Money.'"
  US Magazine.   16 October 2018. Schnurr, Samantha.  "Michael Bubl Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'Consider the Source.'"
  E! News.   16 October 2018. 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. In mid-June 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes posted to social media that purportedly showed a wind turbine that had melted in scorching Texas heat (some versions sent in by readers claimed the turbine was melted in Nebraska). Texas heat   National Weather Service Houston tweeted an image of the turbine in question on June 14, 2021. The turbine, located in Wadsworth, a community southwest of Houston, was damaged by powerful winds during a storm in the area.  Claims about turbines failing during extreme weather events in Texas have been a topic of interest in the past. In February 2021, conservative commentators and legislators falsely claimed that frozen turbines played a major role in the loss of power to millions of Texans as they experienced record cold temperatures. falsely claimed As we reported at that time, half of Texas' wind turbines went offline during the cold snap, but only accounted for a small fraction of the power outage, which was mostly caused by failure of systems producing power from natural gas, coal, and nuclear sources. Claim:  Someone who cheats at cards is properly styled a card shark, not a card sharp. Status:  Multiple  see below. Origins:  Long has the debate raged over whether a card cheat is properly termed a card sharp or a card shark. Sharks, after all, are known for dispassionately rending the flesh of their prey, which would seem in this linguistic battle to favor the card shark camp, since those who manipulate the pasteboards for the purpose of bilking others have no more conscience or concern for their victims than do their finned counterparts.   Yet card sharp also has in its favor that it seems to conjure up mental images of the poker cheats of the Old West, sharp-featured men with cards up their sleeves. Which, therefore, is it? Both terms still mean someone skilled in cheating at cards, although in recent years card shark has also come to acquire the less odious definition of someone skilled at the play of cards. (Were that not so, one would have to wonder at the naming of the 1978 TV game show Card Sharks, on which  contestants tried to guess whether the next card in a sequence was higher or lower than its predecessor.) As to whether card sharp or card shark entered the English language first, the answer is far from straightforward. A print sighting of card sharp dates to 1884 and one of card sharper to 1859, while the first print sighting of card shark takes us back only to 1942  evidence which  would seem to settle matters. However, both sharper and shark (in the sense of one who cheats) antedate all of the above, sharper to 1681 and shark to 1599, evidence which could be seen as giving the nod to shark. (By the way, the "shark" in question has nothing to do with carnivorous fish; it instead likely entered the English language via the German schurke, a word that in the 16th century had the meaning of a cheat or  swindler.)  If you thought the answer might be found via looking at the words sharp and shark absent the word card, that pursuit also leads down a blind alley, because some definitions of both those words contain elements of cheating or connivance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sharp as "A worthless and impecunious person who gains a precarious living by sponging on others, by executing disreputable commissions, cheating at play, and petty swindling; a parasite; a sharper." While that use of the word is rarely encountered these days, remnants of it are still with us, such as when we accuse someone of engaging in "sharp practices" (meaning the cutting of corners to achieve desired ends  while the person so engaged may be staying within the strict letter of the law, his behavior could still be regarded as unethical and suspect). As for the word shark, in addition to encompassing the species of flesh-eating fish it identifies, it has over time come to serve as a label for certain dislikable characters: those who prey greedily upon others (such as successful businesspeople famous more for their love of profit than for adherence to ethics) and those who by virtue of superior skill outmaneuver less capable opponents (highly effective divorce attorneys, for instance). Common compound nouns have been formed from 'shark' that address both meanings, such as loan shark in the "prey greedily" category and pool shark in the "superior skill" category. Barbara "all sharks, finned or otherwise, are best avoided" Mikkelson Last updated:  13 June 2008    Sources:   The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.  The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"  accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll."
 June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey."
 February 2017. Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. In the aftermath of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, many online spoke up to support current President Donald Trump, including groups of truckers. Members of the private Facebook group, Stop the Tires 2020, called for a nationwide truckers' shutdown to protest  among other things  Bidens environmental policies that will include a transition to renewable energy sources. aftermath truckers transition The group  which as of the time of writing had grown to more than 68,000 members since its founding on Nov. 6, 2020  planned a strike for Nov. 11, 2020, Veterans Day, and if that was ineffective, would continue the strike from Nov. 26 to 29, 2020, during the Thanksgiving holidays. According to a post from one of the group's administrators:  group  planned  Tiktok videos of individuals stating they were truckers and describing their plans to strike on the aforementioned dates also went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fTaPCcyqaG0&app=desktop Snopes readers asked us if such strikes were indeed taking place, and if they would impact the delivery of basic food and necessities. We learned that a number of truckers claimed to have participated in the Veterans Day strike. But the actual effectiveness of the past strikes as well as the upcoming ones are yet to be determined. Before looking at the nature and effectiveness of these strikes we had to determine whether nationwide and industry-wide strikes were even likely for U.S.-based truckers. The answer is complicated. A report from Business Insider looked at laws from the administration of President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s that resulted in a decline in wages, and the eventual decline in union membership in the trucking industry. Deregulation laws were justified because they reportedly saved consumers money, but at the cost of truckers wages and working conditions. Hourly wages for heavy and trailer-truck drivers have steadily gone down since then. Business Insider Deregulation laws saved consumers Unions also lost much of their power and membership. A few decades ago, large numbers of truckers were unionized and carried out successful strikes in the '70s. The Teamsters, a labor union that once boasted more than 2 million truckers as members, now has around 75,000 members. And with more independent truckers and companies it is considered extremely challenging to wrangle that many truckers together, because they have neither the time nor resources. Case in point, in April 2019: Tens of thousands of truck drivers planned a work stoppage in a much-hyped Black Smoke Matters protest, but ultimately only a smattering of people in different locations participated. Unions successful strikes challenging April 2019:  On Nov. 11, and even after that date had passed, dozens of members of Stop the Tires 2020 posted pictures on the private group claiming they were participating in a strike by refusing to drive. Some of their posts are below:          But there was little evidence that these stoppages had any impact. WWJ Newsradio 950, Detroits local station, reported on Nov. 11, So far, the call for a one-day strike seems to be all talk, as the trucking industry is humming along. Truckers the station interviewed were not participating, but stated that the strikers concerns made sense, and should be taken seriously: WWJ Newsradio 950 Larry Fuentes, the manager of a large logistics company in metro Detroit told WWJ his truckers have not joined it, but "I can have some understanding of what they're coming for. Their livelihoods are at stake." He added that a strike would devastate the industry. Samuel Ford, a truck driver from Brownstown, Mich., added that he hasn't joined it, but the drivers in the strike group have a point. "Truckers are very often overlooked ... But they do have a very significant say-so over how this country is run," he said. Not all truckers are part of these particular anti-Biden strikes. After the election results were announced on Nov. 7, 2020, the American Trucking Associations released a statement congratulating Biden and calling for more infrastructure investment. American Trucking Associations Other groups that claimed to strike said they were not defending any one political party, but wanted to improve their working conditions and wages. Over the summer truckers also organized to protest decreased freight rates and working conditions during the pandemic. groups the summer Indeed, before the elections, the truckers running the supply chain for United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI) that supplies Whole Foods and other grocery stores in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut threatened to strike over what they said was UNFI's failure to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines. The truckers, represented by Teamsters, along with workers at distribution centers in California, said the company was not providing workers with adequate protective equipment, including face masks, and disinfecting and cleaning workspaces. But they reached an agreement with the company by early November. threatened agreement Since, as of this writing, the strikes planned for late-November are yet to happen, their effectiveness is still to be determined. We will keep an eye on the events and post an update once we have more information.  UPDATE Nov. 18, 2020: Stop the Tires 2020 creator Jeremy Rewoldt called off the Thanksgiving holiday work stoppage, saying "Now is not the time." In an appearance on a video blog, he admitted that he had previously made an "emotion-based decision based on a presumed result of the election that hasnt been certified yet." He added that the administrative team had fractured over disagreements around the purpose of their Facebook group, and he posted on the page: "When this group was made the intentions were to talk and BS amongst a few, if not a couple hundred, people, my friends and others included. What I though was going to be a few hundred turned into 75K people who I now had to voice for. The group's profile image, on Nov. 18, said "Delayed."  called off profile image