Is Article 54 of Obamacare Taking Effect in May 2018?
On 14 April 2018, a Facebook page "America - Love It Or Leave It" shared a meme proclaiming that Article 54 of Obamacare would soon be diverting 30 percent of seniors' social security payments to pay for insurance for undocumented immigrants: shared meme   However, the full text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not include an Article 54, nor does it include any provision for using 30% of seniors' Social Security payments to cover the funding of insurance of undocumented immigrants. full text Moreover, this claim originated solely with "The "America - Love It Or Leave It" Facebook page, which is part of a network of fake news sites and Facebook pages that engage in political trolling under the guise of providing "satire." network
Claim:  Man battles $0.00 charge that won't go away. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1998] In March 1992 a man living in Newtown near Boston Massachusetts received a bill for his as yet unused credit card stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another and threw that one away too. The following month the credit card company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his card if he didn't send them $0.00 by return of post. He called them, talked to them, they said it was a computer error and told him they'd take care of it. The following month our hero decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome credit card figuring that if there were purchases on his account it would put an end to his ridiculous predicament. However, in the first store that he produced his credit card in payment for his purchases he found that his card had been cancelled.  He called the credit card company who apologized for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to the credit card company only the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00 stating that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally giving in he thought he would play the company at their own game and mailed them a check for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the credit card company nothing at all. A week later, the man's bank called him asking him what he was doing writing a check for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank replied that the $0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could not now process ANY checks from ANY of their customers that day because the check for $0.00 was causing the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the credit card company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a check by return of post they would be taking steps to recover the debt. The man, who had been considering buying his wife a computer for her birthday, bought her a typewriter instead. What a world? (country NSW... (New South Wales.. Australia))... On Thursday, 24 January 2002,  Derek Guille broadcast this story on his afternoon program on ABC  radio. In March, 1999, a man living in Kandos (near Mudgee in NSW received a bill for his as yet unused gas line stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month the gas company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his gas line if he didn't send them $0.00 by return mail. He called them, talked to them, and they said it was a computer error and they would take care of it. The following month he decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome gas line figuring that if there was usage on the account it would put an end to this ridiculous predicament. However, when he went to use the gas, it had been cut off. He called the gas company who apologised for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got  a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to them the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake, so  he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00. This bill also stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally, giving in, he thought he would beat the company at their own game and mailed them a cheque [check] for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the gas company nothing at all. A week later, the manager of the Mudgee branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation called our hapless friend and asked him what he was doing writing cheque for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank manager replied that the $0.00 cheque had caused their cheque processing software to fail. The bank could therefore not process ANY cheques they had received from ANY of their customers that day because the cheque for $0.00 had caused the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the gas company claiming that his cheque has bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a cheque by return mail they would take immediate steps to recover the debt. At this point, the man decided to file a debt harassment claim against the gas company. It took him nearly 2 hours to convince the clerks at the local courthouse that he was not joking. They subsequently assisted him in the drafting of statements which were considered substantive evidence of the aggravation and difficulties he had been forced to endure during this debacle. The matter was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Mudgee and the outcome was this: The gas company was ordered to: [1] Immediately rectify their computerised accounts system or show cause, within 10 days, why the matter should not be referred to a higher court for consideration under Company Law. [2] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by the man. [3] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by all the Westpac clients whose cheques had been bounced on the day our friend's had  been. [4] Pay the claimant's court costs; and [5] Pay the claimant a total of $1500 per month for the 5 month period March to July inclusive as compensation for the aggravation they had caused their client to suffer. And all this over $0.00. This story can also be viewed on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website. Who employed these idiots?? Origins:  This wacky tale of billing technology gone horribly wrong first appeared on the Internet in July 1997. It's pointless to ask if this e-mailed tale is a true story because not enough details were provided in the text to give anyone much hope of tracking this specific version to a source. We're told this happened in 1992 to a man in Newtown, Massachussetts, but there is no such town. (There is a Newton, however, in that area.) Neither the man nor the credit card company are named, adding to the difficulties of finding out if the particulars of this story are  real. Later versions of the same e-mail omitted the name of the town and altered the text to "A man living near Boston ..." Even later versions re-inserted the name of the town, this time changing it to Newton. In 2003 it reappeared as a tale about a man living in Australia. It's best we forget about trying to find this mystery man and instead look at the story. There's nothing implausible about receiving a zero-sum statement; people get them all the time. What elevates this particular cyber-version into the realm of legend are the additional details tacked on after that event. This story works as an engaging piece of fiction because of the mounting sense of frustration the victim endures as the people he turns to for help prove incapable of undoing what a machine has done. He finally (he thinks) figures a way to beat the machine at its own game by sending a $0.00 check to pay the $0.00 bill, but in doing so causes his bank's computer to hit the bricks and his check to bounce, prompting yet another dunning notice from the credit card company. It's great tale, but it's probably not a real one: It's unlikely that a zero-dollar check could or did cause a financial institution's computers to crash. If that were all it took, people looking for a few extra days before checks they'd written cleared their accounts (or pranksters merely seeking to wreak industrial havoc) would have routinely deposited zero-dollar checks in order to bring banking systems to their knees.   Variations on this story have been around for years. This one comes from a 1970 joke book: Winning a battle with a computer system is getting to be more fun than sneaking into the subway through an exit gate used to be when we were kids. Let's give a great big hand to latest winner Jerome T. Parker. Mr. Parker, for reasons unknown to him, received a bill from an oil company for several consecutive months for $0.00. He laughingly showed the bills to friends and waited for the bills to stop coming. When he got one marked "Final Notice," however, plus a threat to turn the account over to a notoriously tough collection agency, he wrote out a check for no dollars and no cents, signed his name thereto, and mailed it to the oil company with a note saying, "This pays my account in full." Damned if he didn't get a form letter in return thanking him for his patronage. The reason for this tale's growing popularity of late may well have been captured in the first line of that 1970 example: "Winning a battle with a computer system." As computers come to play ever-increasing roles in our lives, so grows our resentment of them. We fear the thought of someday falling at their mercy, and the $0.00 story expresses this anxiety. In this Kafka-esque tale, the hero is unable to get any of the humans he speaks with to unravel the mess and ultimately has to resort to playing the computer's game to beat it. Chilling thought, that, and we fear that is indeed the way our world is going. In August 1999, Ann Landers ran the following letter from a reader: DEAR ANN LANDERS: When I read your column about outrageous billing statements, I decided to send you my story. When I was in college, I took out guaranteed student loans. After graduation, while still repaying the loans, I was informed that they had defaulted and had been turned over to the state collection agency. I had no idea why.  It took seven years of letter writing, hiring a lawyer and appealing to my congressperson to straighten out the mess. It turned out that my file at the bank had fallen behind a filing cabinet. Can you believe it? It actually happened. I am not making this up. The U.S. Department of Education dropped all penalty charges, and I paid off the balance in full. End of story, right? Wrong. Keep reading.  After the loan was cleared up, I began to receive billing letters from the Department of Education. What was so funny, was that the bills reported no balance due  no principal, penalties or interest. But the letters began none too cordially with, "Warning-Warning-Warning! Your scheduled payment is seriously overdue!" The letters contained several threats about the consequences if I didn't pay off my zero balance immediately. Go figure. I received no fewer than 11 of these threatening letters, and wouldn't be surprised if there are more in the pipeline. In October 1999 another of Ann's reader's came forward to tell her $0.00 tale: Dear Ann: I just read the letter from C.M. in Milpitas, Calif., who said the Department of Education lost her file and kept billing her for her student loan. After the mess was finally straightened out, she received bills demanding she pay a balance of $0. That's right  zero dollars.  This happened to me as well. A financial-aid adviser told me that the quickest way to solve the problem was to ''pay'' the bill, so I wrote a cheque for $0. This is the only to stop the computer from sending statement letters. Calling customer services is useless because they don't always communicate with the billing departments. Since I sent that cheque, I have not been bothered. But get this  the billing department actually tried to cash it. Can $0.00 billings occur? Ask a bookkeeper who has dealt with a computerized receivables system that generates finance charges but does not round off the amounts. In a situation where an overdue account has attracted a finance charge, such bills can occur when the customer pays his bill. As far as the computer is concerned, a debt of < 1 still exists, so the program sends this information to the printer at statement printing time. However, because the program has also been coded not to print fractional cent amounts, it spits out a $0.00 statement.  (The same reasoning applies to one person's online explanation of why Yahoo! sent him a payment check for $0.00.) explanation In the now-vanished world where competent bookkeepers oversaw the receivables process, such oddities were caught before they were mailed out, and a reversing entry to cancel the fractional finance charge was entered to soothe the electronic beast. In the modern world, statements are all too often automatically stuffed into window envelopes (by yet more machines!), franked, and mailed, and accounting personnel think a reversing entry is something one performs to back into a parking space. One would hope that when matters reach the "telephone for help" stage they get straightened out, but then I still believe in the myth of the competent bookkeeper. Barbara "debit taunt of 1977" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 June 2014    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   13 October 1999  [syndicated column].    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   18 August 1999  [syndicated column]. On 12 February 2017, the Facebook page "GreenYatra" published an imagethat bore the claim thatolive oil canbe used to prevent or reverse "sagging breasts": published image   The image-based claim didn't link to any articles or other corroborating information, saying only: Massaging your breasts with olive oil is an excellent technique to firm sagging breasts. Olive oil is a rich source of antioxidants and fatty acids that can reverse the damage caused by free radicals and prevent sagging breasts. Plus, it will help improve the skin tone and texture. According to the claim, topical application of olive oil either circumvents or reverses loss of elasticity in breasts. No specific reason was provided for the claim that olive oil, versus any other type of oil,could replicate the effect shown. The efficacy of topical treatments for sagging breasts or loss of skin elasticity is often discussed in cosmetic circles, thanksin part to the cost and invasiveness of surgical approaches. But research demonstrating any single topical ingredient can prevent (much less reverse) loss of skin elasticity is notably skimpy: notably Antioxidant ointments, creams, and lotions may help reduce the risk of wrinkles and protect against sun damage. Unlike sunscreens, they build up in the skin and are not washed away, so the protection may last longer. Selenium, coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), and alpha-lipoic acid are antioxidants that can be applied to the skin. Evidence of their benefit is limited and more studies in humans are needed. More commonly used antioxidants are described below. Your dermatologist (skin doctor) can tell you which product is right for you. Research from 2012 indicates that anxioxidants could potentially prevent damage to facial skin, but evidence was "limited" and reversal was not referenced. Only 1.5 percent of olive oil contains antioxidants (and that fraction is not composed entirely of antioxidants). Other foods are described as being higher in antioxidants, but no memes recommended rubbing a berry paste onto breasts for firmness. Research overwhelmingly examined efficacy of topical treatment for facial skin, which lacks the weight and density of breast tissue. And although topicals designed for facial skin need only penetrate a few dermal layers, any product designed or intended for useon breasts would have to enter the breast tissue to "lift" or prevent elasticity loss (a far taller order). contains described A blog post written by Miami-based cosmetic surgeon Dr. Ary Krau directly addressesthe question of whether any specific topical substance (including olive oil) had ever shown promise to improve loss of elasticity for breast tissue in clinical research: addresses Unfortunately, no cream or lotion has been clinically proven or FDA-approved to lift the breasts into a higher position. Dont waste your money on any product that claims to improve your breast position. While genetics play a big role in breast sagging, there are a few things you can do to prevent it in the first place. Try not to fluctuate greatly in body weight; gaining and losing a lot of weight in a short period of time can take its toll on the breasts. Be diligent about wearing sunscreen on your chest and dcolletage area to protect the skin from the suns rays. Wear a supportive bra as much as possible, especially when performing high-intensity aerobic exercise. We contacted Dr. Krau's office, and a representative for the clinic told usthat no effective topical treatment appears to exist. A thorough search of related studies turned up no strong evidence facial skin or breast tissue could be firmed by topical treatments at all. A 5percent concentration of Vitamin C (not olive oil) showedmoderate success in treatment of photo-aging in a small 2003 study, but those findings were not relevant to breast tissue or olive oil. 2003 There isresearch [PDF] (conducted by individuals who contracted with cosmetic medical firms) that indicates somesuccess in the ongoing development of a topical version of botulinum toxin type A (popularly known by the brand name Botox) and intended solely for the face. However, thatresearchonly concerns a clinically prescribed substance (botulinum toxin, not a pantry product) and includedno indications that it could beused on breast tissue. PDF Crawford, Holly.  "Sagging Skin  What You and Your Doctor Can Do."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. Glogau, Richard MD et. al.  "Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Botulinum Toxin Type A Topical Gel for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Lateral Canthal Lines."
  Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.  January 2012. Humbert, PG et al.  "Topical Ascorbic Acid on Photoaged Skin. Clinical, Topographical And Ultrastructural Evaluation: Double-Blind Study Vs. Placebo."
  Experimental Dermatology.  June 2003. Krau, Ary MD.  "Is There a Topical Cream for Lifting the Breasts?"
  Ary Krau MD.  22 January 2016. Magee, Elaine.  "10 Nutrient-Rich Super Foods."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC).   "Skin Wrinkles and Blemishes."
  Updated 18 December 2012. International Olive Council.  "The Antioxidant Properties Of The Olive Oil."
    Accessed 16 February 2017. 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 In June 2016, researchers at Columbia University and the French National Institute published a study concluding that nearly 60 percent of links shared on social media are never clicked and read  that people share news stories based on headlines alone. study And what does this have to do with asteroids hitting the earth? In July 2016, Yackler Magazine published an article bearing the clickbait title, "Scientists Say Giant Asteroid Could Hit Earth Next Week, Causing Mass Devastation". While the first two paragraphs of the article were dedicated to the terrifying doomsday event, the author eventually conceded that "nah," she was "totally messing with you": article Scientists have discovered a massive asteroid that is on course to hit the Earth next week, and are scrambling to find a way to divert the object. The asteroid has been named 2016-FI and measures approximately 1 km across. If it strikes a populated area is could wipe out entire cities and potentially devastate an entire continent or  nah. Im totally messing with you. Theres no asteroid (at least not about to strike next week). After the clickbait title and a little misinformation, Yackler Magazine provided some quotes from the study and explained that the article was published as a sort of experiment of their own. The article concluded with a call to its readers to use a color word while commenting to show that they had read the article: study   While many readers passed the test with, well, flying colors, others shared the article about a giant asteroid heading toward earth on Facebook: shared People are more willing to share an article than read it, study co-author Arnaud Legout said in a statement. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary, or a summary of summaries, without making the effort to go deeper. To reiterate: there's no giant asteroid heading to earth, and the frightening title was a "social experiment" to see how many people actually read the article. In March 2018, a Facebook post deriding "Trump haters" and touting one of the president's accomplishments  an executive order that grants veterans free health care at any hospital in the United States  started going viral: post   For all the Trump haters; today President Trump signed an executive order allowing our veterans to get 100% medical bills paid at hospitals other than a V.A. hospital. This will save the lives of many American service men and women who have been on V.A. waiting lists, some for years and many dying while waiting. Now they can go to ANY hospital they want... This is how our veterans SHOULD be treated!!! Thanks President Trump!!! There are a number of problems with this Facebook post, starting with the claim that President Donald Trump signed an executive order "today" (5 March 2018). A list of Presidential actions (including executive orders) available on the White House's web site shows that no executive order at all, whether for veteran's health care or anything else, was signed on this date.  list The language in this post seems to be referring to the Veterans Choice Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in August 2014. President Trump signed a bill to extend this program a few months before it was set to expire in August 2017: Veterans Choice Act signed signed President Donald Trump extended the Veterans Choice Act on Wednesday to set the stage for a push in Congress to expand the program and allow more access to private care for veterans. Flanked by veterans at an Oval Office ceremony, the president signed the bill to extend the Choice program, which was to expire on Aug. 7, and allow the expenditure of the remaining $950 million in the program. This was not an executive order; furthermore, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 did not accomplish all of the things set out in this Facebook post, such as grant free health care at any hospital. Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014  The Veterans Choice Program expanded the "availability of medical services for eligible Veterans with community providers," but it did not grant veterans the opportunity to receive completely free health care at any hospital of their choosing. A fact sheet provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs laid out the criteria for veterans to seek health care outside established providers: Veterans Choice Program fact sheet As directed by the Choice Act, VA will administer the Veterans Choice Fund to implement the Veterans Choice Program (the Program). The Program will operate for 3 years or until the Fund is exhausted. The Program will provide Veterans who were enrolled as of August 1, 2014 or eligible to enroll as a recently discharged combat Veteran with a Veterans Choice Card, and allow those Veterans who are unable to schedule an appointment within 30 days of their preferred date or the clinically appropriate date, or on the basis of their place of residence to elect to receive care from eligible non-VA health care entities or providers. This is separate from VAs existing program providing Veterans care outside of the VA system. Eligible non-VA entities or providers must enter into agreements with VA to furnish care, must maintain the same or similar credentials and licenses as VA providers, and must submit to VA a copy of any medical records related to care and services provided under the Program for inclusion in the Veterans VA electronic medical record. The VA elaborated on the criteria that veterans must meet in order to seek treatment at outside providers. Even then, the choice of hospitals is limited to the facilities that have agreed to participate in the program. Furthermore, this bill does not include a provision stating that it covered all of the health care provided at these facilities. Some veterans may be eligible for free health care services, but most are required to pay for a portion of their treatment: elaborated eligible While many Veterans qualify for free healthcare services based on a VA compensable service-connected condition or other special eligibilities, most Veterans are required to complete a financial assessment or means test at the time of enrollment to determine if they qualify for free health care services. Veterans whose income exceed VA income limits as well as those who choose not to complete the financial assessment at the time of enrollment, must agree to pay required copays for health care services to become eligible for VA healthcare services.  The future of the program is uncertain, however. Critics of the program say that it's too expensive, and that it could eventually lead to downsizing. Critics Hicks, Josh.  "A Simple Summary of the New VA Bill."
  The Washington Post.  29 July 2014. Jackson, David.  "Obama Signs Veterans Health Care Bill."
  USA Today.  7 August 2014. Rein, Lisa.  "Its Killing the Agency: Ugly Power Struggle Paralyzes Trumps Plan to Fix Veterans Care."
  The Washington Post.  9 March 2018. Sisk, Richard.  "Trump Signs Bill to Extend Veterans Choice Program."
  Military.com.  19 April 2017. After numerous women came forward to accuse powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, and rape in October 2017, social media users circulated photographs of Weinstein with various politicians in an apparent attempt to smear their characters. One meme went even further, purportedly showing President Obama bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Weinstein, President Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Bill Cosby and joking that it should be renamed the "sexual predator award": producer showing   Three women have accused Bill Clinton sexual harassment, rape, or sexual assault -- charges that he denies. Anthony Weiner was sentenced to 21 months prison for exchanging sexual messages with a 15-year-old girl. Dozens of women accused Bill Cosby of drugging, raping and assaulting them. women prison drugging, The only genuine image included in this meme is that of President Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to President Bill Clinton during a ceremony in November 2013. The Washington Post reported at the time that: ceremony It was a ceremony rich in pageantry and politics: President Obama, at the nadir of his presidency, bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on a Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton ... Obama uttered fewer than 300 words about Clinton. But his remarks paid tribute to the sweep of his public life  from transforming education as governor of Arkansas to growing the economy as the 42nd president to leading relief efforts in the wake of global natural disasters. Obama said Clintons charitable foundation has saved literally hundreds of millions of people. He still remembers as a child waving goodbye to his mom  tears in her eyes  as she went off to nursing school so she could provide for her family, Obama said of Clinton. And I think lifting up families like his own became the story of Bill Clintons life. All three of the other images were created by taking a genuine photograph of a different recipient and then using digital manipulation to add the heads of Weinstein, Weiner, and Cosby. The photograph purportedly showing Obama with Weinstein, for instance, originally featured an image of Vice President Joe Biden:   Obama surprised Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during a ceremony in January 2017. ceremony The image purportedly showing Obama with Anthony Weiner was created using an image that originally featured actor Tom Hanks:   Hanks received his award in November 2016. award The image of Bill Cosby was also fake. The original image featured President Obama bestowing the Medal of Freedom on musician Bruce Springsteen:   Although the image of Bill Cosby with President Obama is fake, the comedian truly did receive the award in 2002 -- from President George W. Bush: award  Neither Weinstein nor Weiner has received a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Kim, Kyle.  "Bill Cosby: A 50-year Chronicle of Accusations and Accomplishments."
  Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2017. Kessler, Glenn.  "A Guide to the Allegations of Bill Clintons Womanizing."
  The Washington Post.  30 December 2015. The Economist.  "Anthony Weiner Is Sentenced to 21 Months in Prison."
  25 September 2017. Gittens, Hasani.  "President Barack Obama Honors Joe Biden with Surprise Medal of Freedom."
  NBC News.  13 January 2017. Rucker, Philip.  "Obama Honors Clinton and His Legacy with Presidential Medal of Freedom."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2013. Grant, Sarah.  "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom."
  Rolling Stone.  22 November 2016. Los Angeles Times.  "Harvey Weinstein Went From Power Player to Pariah in Less Than a Week. Here's How it Happened."
  16 October 2017. Grant, Sarah.  "Watch President Obama Award Bruce Springsteen Medal of Freedom."
  Rolling Stone.  22 November 2016. Lawler, David.  "Barack Obama Presents Medal of Freedom to Stars Including Tom Hanks, Bruce Springsteen and Michael Jordan."
  The Telegraph.  23 November 2016. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. In March 2022, social media users, and in particular right-leaning commentators, protested what they characterized as a decision by Congress members to award themselves a 21 percent pay rise, while U.S. residents endured inflation and record high gas prices. record high gas prices For example, former Republican Congressional candidate Buzz Patterson wrote: candidate wrote While you are paying record prices at the grocery store and gas pump, our politicians in Congress voted for a 21% pay raise for themselves.   For his part, Donald Trump Jr.  the son of and adviser to former President Donald Trump  tweeted: "What the hell has Congress done to deserve a 21% raise?" Similar claims were made by various right-leaning commentators. tweeted were made various commentators On March 10, the right-wing FrontPage Magazine posted an article with the headline "Americans Can't Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise": posted an article   On Facebook, screenshots of that headline went viral, as shown in the image below: went viral   In reality, Congress members did not award themselves a 21 percent pay raise in 2022, but they did vote to increase their operating budgets and expenses by that much. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "false." What those claims actually referred to was something called the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), which the non-partisan Congressional Research Service describes as follows: describes as follows Members of the House of Representatives have one consolidated allowance, the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), with which to operate their offices... While Representatives have a high degree of flexibility to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, they must operate within a number of restrictions and regulations. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA), the allowance provided to Members of the House of Representatives to operate their DC and district offices, may only support Members in their official and representational duties. It may not be used for personal or campaign purposes. The MRA can be used to pay office staff, but does not include the salary of House members themselves, which has not changed since 2009 and is $174,000 for a typical member. Usually, representatives spend their MRA on travel, paying staff, printing services, office supplies, and so on. has not changed since 2009 On March 15, President Joe Biden signed into law the massive omnibus spending bill. H.R. 2471. Around halfway through the 2,700-page text of the bill, the following stipulation can be found: signed into law text of the bill Members' Representational Allowances Including members' clerk hire, official expenses of members, and official mail For Members' representational allowances, including Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, $774,400,000. In other words, the collective MRA for the House of Representatives is just over $774 million for the 2022 fiscal year. For the 2021 fiscal year, the MRA was $640 million, which means a year-on-year increase of $134.4 million, or exactly 21 percent, as highlighted by Roll Call. 2021 fiscal year Roll Call Senators, who also typically have a salary of $174,000, avail themselves of a roughly equivalent allowance, called the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA). For the record, that too increased in the 2022 omnibus spending bill: from $461 million in 2021 to $486.3 million in 2022  a 5 percent increase. SOPOEA $461 million $486.3 million Americans Cant Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise - Frontpagemag. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/americans-cant-afford-gas-congress-just-gave-daniel-greenfield/. Accessed 16 Mar. 2022. Kelly, Stephanie. U.S. Gasoline Prices Edge Lower after Hitting Record High Last Week. Reuters, 13 Mar. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gasoline-prices-edge-lower-after-hitting-record-high-last-week-2022-03-13/. Legislative Branch Bill Boosts Members Representational Allowance, Capitol Police. Roll Call, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.rollcall.com/2022/03/09/legislative-branch-bill-boosts-members-representational-allowance-capitol-police/. Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The White House, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/15/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-h-r-2471-consolidated-appropriations-act-2022/. In December 2016, several web sites reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sons of President-elect Donald Trump, were selling access to their father via a fundraising event called "Opening Day 45" scheduled for the day after his inauguration: several reported BREAKING: Donald Trumps Kids Are Selling Access To Their Father For A $1 Million Donation  This Is IMPEACHABLE! [DETAILS] The shamelessness of President-elect Donald Trump and his family is limitless and without boundaries. They do not care about the appearance of impropriety or actual impropriety. That is why Trumps sons, Eric and Donald Jr., founded a non-profit organization to funnel money through when they sell access to Trump once he is inaugurated. Indeed, Fascism has come to America in the form of an orange failed businessman with a penchant for using racial slurs. The non-profit the Trump offspring founded is named the Opening Day Foundation, and they are offering Trumps richest supporters the grand opportunity of private access. However, the access comes with a price tag of a cool one million dollars. Individuals who are rich, but not rich enough to attempt to buy a favor from the president, can also purchase time with either of the Trump boys for as little as $25,000. What does one purchase besides time with Trump? Certain packages include pictures and a private reception with the president. Others include a multi-day hunting trip, or a fishing trip with Eric or Donald Jr. Reports that the Trump sons were selling access to their father began on 16 December 2016 when the gossip web site TMZ published a draft of an invitation for the "Opening Day 45" event. The unofficial invitation featured several packages which donors could buy, such as the $1 million "Bald Eagle" package (which included a photo opportunity with the president-elect) or the $500,000 "Grizzly Bear" package (which included a hunting trip with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump): TMZ published  The Washington Post reported that the Trump sons were temporarily listed as "hosts" of the event on the "Opening Day 45" web site. However, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that the initial invitation was just a draft and had not been approved by Trump's transition team. Furthermore, Hicks added, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were not involved with the event: reported Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid outdoorsman and supporters of conservation efforts, which align with the goals of this event, however they are not involved in any capacity, she said in a statement. Additionally, the President-elect is not aware of the event or the details pertaining to. While Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump may not be involved with the planning of this particular event, they were listed as members of the Board of Directors on paperwork filed to register the non-profit "Opening Day" foundation on 14 December 2016. Again, however, Trump's transition team asserted that Eric and Donald Jr. were included on the foundation's paperwork without their permission: paperwork But transition officials said the Trump sons were listed on the document without their permission and have asked the Texas secretary of state to remove their names. [Mark Brinkerhoff, a spokesman for the event] confirmed that they should not have been named as directors of the Opening Day Foundation. He said that the paperwork filed last week was not the official filing and that new documents would be submitted shortly. Still, he said the Trump brothers were supportive of the foundation and its goals. Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s level of involvement with the organization is still unclear. A new version of the invitation for "Opening Day 45" published on the event web site on 20 December 2016 listed them as "honorary chairmen" but not organizers or hosts.  invitation The photo opportunity with President-elect Donald Trump, as well as the hunting trip with his sons, was also absent from the newer invitation. Instead, donors who spent $1 million on the "Bald Eagle" package would get a private reception with unnamed VIPs and celebrities associated with the event:  This version of the invitation is no longer available on the web site, however, which now leads to a "Coming Soon" page. We've reached out to event spokesman Mark Brinkerhoff to clarify some information regarding the event.  TMZ.  "Donald Trump & Family Celebrate Hunters and Fisherman at Inauguration Bash."
  20 December 2016. Gold, Matea.  "Offer of Access to Trump and Family at Fundraiser Is Pulled Back, But Ties Remain."
  The Washington Post.  20 December 2016. The Center for Public Integrity.   "Donald Trump's Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access to President-Elect."
  19 December 2016. In early August 2020, Snopes readers asked whether the following meme shared across social media accurately quoted U.S. President Donald Trump's commenting on the United States Postal Service and voting by mail:   This quote appears to be a fabricated one. Although the meme's text states that Trump made the remark on a talk radio show hosted by Fox News personality Sean Hannity on July 30, 2020, Trump wasn't a guest on  Hannity's AM radio talk show  that day. Hannity's AM radio talk show  It's true that Trump has repeatedly disparaged mail-in voting, falsely stating  that voting by mail leads to rampant election fraud (except in Florida). He even appeared to suggest in a tweet, which prompted widespread backlash, that the November 2020 election should be delayed because the widespread use of mail-in ballots during the ongoing pandemic would compromise the results. falsely stating  Florida tweet widespread backlash Some concern has also been expressed that Trump has reduced the effectiveness of the Postal Service with budget cuts, as The New York Times reported: "Fueled by animus for Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and surrounded by advisers who have long called for privatizing the post office, Mr. Trump and his appointees have begun taking cost-cutting steps that appear to have led to slower and less reliable delivery." reduced However, we found no evidence that Trump made the remark in the above-displayed meme. It wasn't posted to his Twitter account or recorded in any statements transcribed by the White House. And Trump was not a guest on the Hannity show on July 30, 2020, so he didn't make the remark there, as suggested by the meme.   These words appear to be someone else's paraphrase of what they assumed Trump was thinking or planning. posted We therefore rate this claim  Lee, Jessica.  "Do Mail-In Ballots Increase Risk of Voter Fraud?"
  Snopes.com.  26 May 2020. Welna, David.  "Citing Election Delay Tweet, Influential Trump Ally Now Demands His Re-Impeachment."
  NPR.  31 July 2020. Shear, Michael D. et al.  "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal System Ahead of Voting."
  The New York Times.  31 July 2020. Freking, Kevin.  "Trump Encourages Mail Voting in Florida But Sues in Nevada."
  The Associated Press.  5 August 2020.