Was This McDonald's Burned During Floyd Protests?
As protests over the May 2020 police-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis swept across the U.S., resulting in the  burning of structures in many cities, the Breaking9ll Twitter account tweeted a picture of a blazing McDonald's restaurant along with the caption "BREAKING: McDonald's Has Fallen": burning  This tweet did not feature a real photograph of a McDonald's set afire during protests over Floyd's death, however. The image was a repurposed photograph of a restaurant in  Lebanon, Pennsylvania, that burned in November 2016 after a grease fire started in its kitchen: repurposed The McDonald's at 757 E. Cumberland St. in Lebanon is deemed a complete loss by Lebanon Fire Commissioner Duane Trautman after a grease fire started in the kitchen and spread toward the roof Friday night. Crews were dispatched just after 8 p.m., and according to dispatch reports, a fully involved kitchen fire is what they arrived to. The Breaking 911 Twitter account, which described itself as a "parody account," mimicked the appearance of the real Breaking 911 news site's Twitter feed.  The former account has since been suspended by Twitter. Breaking 911 Breaking 911 Asroff, Chris.  "McDonald's East Complete Loss After Grease Fire."
  Lebanon Daily News.  18 November 2016.
Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. Responding to an ad blitz in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged Missouri businesses to move to the booming Lone Star State, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon suggested that taxes are lower in his state and that students fare better. Nixon, a Democrat, also singled out credit worthiness in the radio spotwe noticed onlineAug. 27, 2013. Unlike Texas, Nixon said, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Three days earlier, heposted a similar claimon a Twitter list of ways he ranks the Show-Me State as #betterthantx. His credit claim snagged our attention. Achart posted onlineby the California state treasurer lists state general-obligation bond ratings by three rating agencies. We noticed that Missouri and Texas both earned the highest, AAA rating from both Fitch Ratings and Moodys Investors Service. But Standard & Poors gave Missouri a  AAA rating and Texas a rating of AA+, which is its rating immediately below AAA. Via emails from spokespersons for each of those rating services, we confirmed those ratings for both states--and we inquired into the differences. By phone, New York-based Moodys spokesman David Jacobson told us that both states have long been stable borrowers, though Missouri has had its Moodys AAA rating longer--since at least 1972, Jacobson said. In contrast, he said, Moodys lowered its rating for Texas general obligation debt from AAA to AA in 1987. That year, Texas faced a recession that drove down state revenues. In 2010, Jacobson said, Moodys recalibrated its methodology for rating state debt; Texas regained a AAA rating. A Standard & Poors spokesman, Olayinka Fadahunsi, emailed us a Nov. 20, 2012, report by the firm stating it had assigned its AA+ rating to general-obligation bonds issued by the Texas Transportation Commission. The report credited the Texas economy with being diverse and strong and likely to continue to generate additional jobs. Also, it said, state government had strong cash-management practices and low overall debt and retirement liabilities. On the other hand, it expressed concern at the states budgetary pressures, which are primarily related to the growing proportion of school revenues Texas is required to fund, as well as insufficient new sources of recurring dedicated tax revenues to support the increased funding. The report also cited increasing spending pressure from public assistance payments, including Medicaid, plus uncertainty about how the Obamacare law might affect the states health-care expenditures. Based on the analytic factors we evaluate for states, on a four-point scale in which '1' is the strongest, we have assigned Texas an overall score of '1.8, the report said. We asked Fadahunsi to discuss the distinction between the firms AA+ and AAA ratings. By email, he said that there is no one precise financial distinction. The firms general debt ratings methodology, as published Jan. 3, 2011, states that it develops a states credit rating by judging conditions across factors including the governments framework; financial management; economy; budgetary performance; and debt/liability profile. We assess each of these factors utilizing various metrics that we score on a scale from 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest), the methodology states. For each metric there may be several indicators we evaluate to develop the metric score. We score each indicator individually on the same scale and average the indicators' scores to develop the overall score for the metric. We average the metrics for each factor to develop a composite score for each. The scores for the five factors are combined and averaged with equal weighting to arrive at an overall score which is then translated to an indicative credit level. The report says an overall score of 1 to 1.5 is needed to draw the AAA rating. Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the Texas state comptrollers office, pointed us to a December 2012,reportby the Texas Bond Review Board which includes a chart indicating that as of August 2012, Missouri was among seven states with AAA GO debt ratings from the three major rating services. The other perfects were: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Finally we asked Robert Coalter, executive director of theTexas Public Finance Authority, which issues bonds for the acquisition or construction of state buildings, to speak to any financial costs to Texas from not having Missouris three AAA ratings. Coalter said by phone that the effect is minimal, adding that any entity that issues bonds--including state agencies--sometimes obtain ratings from only one or two of the rating services. Also, he said, investment firms conduct their own research before committing to bonds. Coalter said the ratings of Texas debt are outstanding. Our debt is considered to be top quality. Put another way, might the Missouri governors statement be real-world meaningless? I do not believe its significant, Coalter replied. He said the claim sounded like comparing one student scoring 100 on a test with another scoring 99. Our ruling Nixon said that unlike Texas, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. Thats correct, though Texas is close; two major services rate the bigger states GO debt AAA, one rates it AA+, which is its next-highest rating. We rate this claim as True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures. )But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill In July 2021, some Facebook users reported seeing new warning messages from site administrators about "harmful extremist content" or asking whether they felt someone they knew was "becoming an extremist."   The reports authentically captured a new Facebook-led pilot initiative that attempted to help site administrators identify users or content that breached Facebook's existing bans on "objectionable content." For that reason, we rate this claim  objectionable content According to reputable news outlets, the new messages were appearing for some users when they used the desktop or mobile version of Facebook. One notice took the form of a question, "Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?" while the other warned, "you may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently." news outlets Another alert read, according to CNN: "Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. [...] You can take action now to protect yourself and others." Reuters reported: Reuters reported Facebook said the small test, which is only on its main platform, was running in the United States as a pilot for a global approach to prevent radicalization on the site. 'This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk,' said a Facebook spokesperson in an emailed statement. "We are partnering with NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.' We reached out to the tech giant's communication team ourselves to discuss the notices, but we have not yet received a response. We will update this report, when, or if, that changes. All messages gave recipients the option to "get support" from one or more Facebook partners. A Facebook spokesperson told CNN they included Life After Hate, an advocacy group that helps people leave violent far-right movements. told CNN Life After Hate According to Reuters, the effort was part of Facebook's promise to counter extremist content after a user live-streamed himself opening fire at a New Zealand mosque  killing 51 people  in March 2019. March 2019 Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook, confirmed the factualness of CNN's article about the news messages with the below-displayed tweet. tweet   Ultimately, the new warnings were a response to critics who believe the tech giant could have done more to prevent users from circulating false claims during the 2020 election and planning violence like the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. users 2020 election Jan. 6 Capitol In March, for example, Avaaz, a nonprofit that seeks to curb misinformation, uncovered at least 267 pages or groups with connections to that it said spread violence-glorifying content  some of which remained active despite Facebook's efforts to block users from such material. Avaaz pages or groups such material Snopes has also identified such groups that have seemingly evaded the site's attempts to ban violent rhetoric, including a militia group in which users discussed plans to open fire on any one that starts rioting after the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Snopes attempts to ban militia group Jacob Blake [See here for exclusive Snopes analysis titled, "Violence Brewed in Facebook Groups Ahead of 'Stop The Steal' Protests"] here 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. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has often used economic statistics to attack President Barack Obamas administration, and he did the same following the Democratic National Convention. American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream! We havent fact-checked Trump on this particular statistic before, so we took a look at the data. On the numbers The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate. Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out  the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago. As the graph shows, the rate grew steadily since 1995, reaching a 69 percent peak in 2005. But it has been in decline ever since. Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987. So Trumps data is accurate, but there are some caveats. Demographic trends Experts told us millennials are largely to blame for the dropping homeownership rate, but its as much their lifestyle preferences as it is a sign of a poor economy. Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents. At the same time, lifestyle choices  such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children  all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents. Many millennials have expressed little desire to own a home, said Byron Studdard, a financial adviser at Studdard Financial, which focuses on estate and retirement planning. Witnessing the financial crisis and their parents difficulties paying off their mortgages, as well as general desire to be mobile, serve as deterrents. Studdard also cautioned against comparisons to 1965, because that was a different generation that was more likely than millennials to view homeownership as the first step to prosperity. Im not sure the homeownership rate is necessarily going to be a good indicator of if America is great again, like it was when we had the World War II generation, Studdard explained. How big a problem is it? While the falling homeownership rate is not a positive, economists we spoke to disagreed on how problematic it was. In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters. He said the headship rate  the percent of adults heading a household  is a better figure that captures both owners and renters. Increases in the headship rate still stimulates household construction, he said. That rate, according to the Census Bureaus 2015 Current Population Survey, has been going up as of 2013. Slight decreases in owner-occupied households were outpaced by increases in renter households, said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia, a company providing real estate information for buyers and sellers. Yet renter-households still boost demand for construction and other goods, he said. The comparative benefits of renting versus owning a home are still disputed, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, an online real estate database company. On the other hand, DeSanctis said the low homeownership rate poses problems for the American economy. Owning a home has typically been a major source of investment for the middle class, and renting does not fulfill the same investment function. As a result, the country has become more unequal in recent years as rising home values have benefitted current homeowners greatly at a time more people are renting and facing escalating rental prices each year, he said. He said Trump has a point in identifying the troubles people have buying a home, especially as rising rental rates and housing prices surpass income gains. The biggest housing losses immediately after the recession affected middle-aged adults, Terrazas said. Our ruling Trump said homeownership is at its lowest since 1965. The numbers back him up. However, there are some caveats. Some of the decline is due to lifestyle, and not economic, changes. In addition, experts told us the housing market is not in as dire straits as one statistic suggests. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True. Ever since Melania Trump delivered an oddly familiar speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016, the First Lady has been dogged by accusations of plagiarism (many of which were nothing more than fake news). A new batch of allegations surfaced in May 2018, as keen-eyed readers noticed that a pamphlet linked to Trump's new "Be Best" campaign was nearly identical to a document released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2014: familiar speech nothing more fake news   It is true that the "Be Best" campaign linked to a pamphlet that was nearly identical to material published by the FTC in 2014. You can see the FTC's pamphlet, "Net Cetera. Chatting with Kids About Being Online," here, and the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" from the White House here. These two documents are nearly identical (with the exception of an introduction from the First Lady), but it's disingenuous to say that Melania Trump "plagiarized" this material.  here here The main piece of evidence supporting the "plagiarism" charge is that the pamphlet was originally presented on the White House web site as a booklet "by First Lady Melania Trump and the Federal Trade Commission," in reference to the First Lady's having contributed an introduction to the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet.  That wording was soon updated to describe Talking with Kids about Being Online" as "a Federal Trade Commission booklet, promoted by First Lady Melania Trump."  At no point did Melania Trump take credit for (or claim she had written) the entire pamphlet. presented Nearly every page of the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet contains a link to the FTC's web site about Internet safety, and the final page lists web sites for both the Be Best campaign and the FTC's internet safety page: safety   The White House released a contentious statement on 8 May 2018 about the plagiarism accusations: statement Mrs. Trump agreed to add Be Best branding and distribute the booklet in an effort to use her platform to amplify the positive message within. As she said in yesterdays speech, she is going to use Be Best to promote people and organizations to encourage conversation and replication, and helping the FTC distribute this booklet is just one small example. Despite providing countless outlets with ample background, information, and on-the-record comments from the FTC, some media have chosen to take a day meant to promote kindness and positive efforts on behalf of children, to instead lob baseless accusations towards the First Lady and her new initiatives. As stated by Nathaniel Wood, Consumer and Business Education Division Associate Director, FTC, We frequently work with members of Congress, the White House, other government agencies, and the private sector. As a small and independent civil law enforcement agency, the FTC encourages our partners to help spread our message to consumers. We were excited that Mrs. Trump distributed this important information about staying safe online. We look forward to continuing to work with her and others to help parents and children use the Internet safely and responsibly. Our office will continue to focus on helping children and I encourage members of the media to attempt to Be Best in their own professions, and focus on some of the children and programs Mrs. Trump highlighted in her remarks yesterday. In February 2022, a picture showing a curious piece of currency, a $1,000 bill featuring the face of 22nd and 24th U.S. President Grover Cleveland, was circulated on social media: While thousand-dollar bills may not be a familiar sight to modern audiences, the United States truly produced a $1,000 bill featuring Cleveland in 1928 and 1934. As for this specific bill, this photo was first posted to Reddit in August 2020 by a banker in a post explaining that the bill was brought in to be deposited by a customer. The bank teller, according to the post, informed the man that this bill was likely worth much more than $1,000 and encouraged them to sell it to a collector:  Reddit in August 2020 Customer brought in a 1934 thousand dollar bill. After ten years in banking finally got to see one in person ... told him I could accept the bill but only at face value. Really tried to steer him to find a collector or someone else because he could get more for it, even in that condition. Cleveland first appeared on the $1,000 bill in 1928. Here's a newspaper clipping from 1928 announcing the new currency, including two larger denominations, a $5,000 bill featuring President James Madison and a $10,000 bill featuring Salmon P. Chase, a former governor, senator, Supreme Court justice, and secretary of the treasury.  15 Jan 1929, Tue The Democrat-Argus (Caruthersville, Missouri) Newspapers.com  15 Jan 1929, Tue The Democrat-Argus (Caruthersville, Missouri) Newspapers.com Side note: While the $10,000 bill was real, it did not feature the words "HAIL SATAN" in small print around its edges, as online rumors claimed in 2017.  online rumors claimed in 2017 Cleveland wasn't the first person to be featured on a piece of American currency worth $1,000. The National Museum of American History's Numismatic Collection features a few other legal tender notes in that denomination. For example, a $1,000 note featuring Robert Morris, a financier and founding father known as "Financier of the Revolution," was produced in 1863. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. secretary of the treasury, was also the face of a $1,000 note in 1918.  Robert Morris The Cleveland bills were last printed in 1945, and officially discontinued in 1969 due to a "lack of use," according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing. While we can't say for sure why these bills fell out of favor, a newspaper article from 1946 described the air of suspicion that surrounded people who paid for things with $1,000 bills. U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing  27 Feb 1946, Wed The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) Newspapers.com  27 Feb 1946, Wed The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) Newspapers.com While the reporter in the above-displayed story found that these suspicions were largely exaggerated (he was able to use $1,000 bills without a problem), the $1,000 bill's connection to nefarious activities, justified or not, stretches back to the early 1900s:  25 Nov 1911, Sat St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri) Newspapers.com  25 Nov 1911, Sat St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri) Newspapers.com A Man With a $1000 Bill Is Little Better Than Penniless. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 Nov. 1911, p. 2. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94583897/st-louis-post-dispatch/. Passing $1000 Bills In Boston Is Cinch, Globe Reporter Finds. The Boston Globe, 27 Feb. 1946, p. 11. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94583750/the-boston-globe/. Rare $1,000 Bill Expected to Fetch $1M at Baltimore Auction. Baltimoresun.Com, https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-rare-money-auction-20180321-story.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. Robert Morris Deserves His Place on This $1,000 Bill  The Intelligent Collector Magazine | Blog. https://intelligentcollector.com/blog/robert-morris-deserves-his-place-on-this-1000-bill/. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. The National Numismatic Collection. National Museum of American History, 21 July 2016, https://americanhistory.si.edu/national-numismatic-collection. U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - $1,000 Note (Green Seal). https://www.moneyfactory.gov/1000greendenom.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - Denominations Greater Than $100. https://www.moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/denomsabove100.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022.