Barack Obama and the National Anthem
Although the custom is sometimes more honored in the breach than in the observance, the U.S. Flag Code states that "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." Flag Code  Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism, Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama caused something of a stir in September 2007 when he was seemingly spotted not observing the hand-over-heart protocol during a playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at an Indianola, Iowa, steak fry attended by the six top Democratic presidential candidates: Boy, that's exactly who we need as President! Does this man not cross his heart when the National Anthem is playing, or when the flag is raised or lowered? OR, was this an accident on his part? Photo shows 4 of them, including the infamous Hillary... Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name). The article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE. How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?  The photograph itself is real, one of several images of the Iowa steak fry event published by Time, and shows then-Senator Barack Obama standing with his hands clasped just below his waist, while New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, New York senator Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin (wife of Iowa senator Tom Harkin) stand with their hands held over their hearts. It's difficult to establish context from a single still image, but other accounts (including ABC News video of the event) documented that the picture was as described: Time  (It's not clear from the photograph or the video just what the candidates were looking at. The Flag Code advises that they should be "standing at attention facing the flag," but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they're standing. Presumably another flag was in place off to the right of the platform, since most of the candidates were facing that direction.) As we noted earlier, although the U.S. Flag Code still specifies that those present should stand "with the right hand over the heart" during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, that particular form is one that has generally come to be observed less and less consistently among the general public over the decades: Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web. Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner. "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant." As for whether this incident was an "accident," whether Senator Obama habitually declines to perform the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there's any particular meaning to the (non-)action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded: "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." The senator himself said that "My grandfather taught me when I was two. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing." When television's Inside Edition ran a segment on this issue, they included some images (supplied by the Obama campaign) of the senator standing with his hand over his heart during other playings of the national anthem:   The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photograph claimed that Senator Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The following video clip shows Barack Obama reciting the Pledge during the opening of U.S. Senate sessions:  During the Democratic candidates' debate on 15 January 2008, Senator Obama directly refuted the three primary rumors about him that were then circulating via e-mail: that he is a Muslim, that he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance:  This item saw renewed interest in April 2017, when First Lady Melania Trump seemingly had to nudge her husband, President Donald Trump, to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem while celebrating the annual White House Easter Egg Roll:  A spoof article about Barack Obama's stance on the U.S. national anthem was later circulated via e-mail as a genuine statement the then-senator. spoof Adair, Bill.  "E-Mail Assailing Obama's Patriotism Misses Mark."
  St. Petersburg Times.  9 November 2007. Cornwell, Rupert.  "Obama Discovers Perils of Not Wearing His Patriotic Heart on His Sleeve."
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  25 October 2007. Halperin, Mark.  "Steak and Stump Speeches in Iowa."
  Time.  16 September 2007. Golab, Art and Abdon M. Pallasch.  "'I Decided I Won't Wear That Pin on My Chest'."
  Chicago Sun-Times.  5 October 2007. "Obama Captured on Tape Not Putting His Hand Over His Heart During the National Anthem."
  FOX News  (Hannity & Colmes).    23 October 2007. Aug. 26, 2020: Outdated video links have been updated.
Claim:  Mitt Romney is facing federal ethics charges. :    Mitt Romney has been charged with ethics violations by the federal government.  The United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations have requested a federal investigation of Mitt Romney's financial disclosures. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] I saw this on Face Book and I am wondering if this is true? BREAKING: Romney facing federal ethics charges. YES. This is REAL.  On Monday, Mitt Romney is expected to face charges for ethics violations and profiteering with regard to his involvement with the 2009 government bailout of the auto industry. Origins:  On 1 November 2012, five days before the U.S. presidential election, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and several other organizations sent a letter to Don W. Fox, the General Counsel and Principal Deputy Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, calling for an investigation of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's financial disclosures.  The senders maintain that Mitt Romney has "undisclosed stock holdings [that] create very serious conflicts ofinterest" and that he garnered a profit of "at least $15.3 million" from the automobile industry bailout of 2009. letter In a press release about the letter, the UAW stated: press release A coalition of community, labor and good government organizations is calling on the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to investigate presidential candidate Mitt Romney for noncompliance with the Ethics in Government Act and compel him to either disclose his investments or divest them. A letter sent to Don W. Fox, general counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, states that Gov. Romney "has not even attempted to meet the requirements for a federal blind trust with respect to his substantial equity holdings. The only way for this law to be enforced in a meaningful way is for your Office to act promptly to  demand that candidate Romney disclose his stock holdings, or divest them if disclosure is not feasible." The letter was sent by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, SEIU, UAW and The Social Equity Group, and it follows up on a previous letter sent to the Office of Government Ethics on Aug. 23, 2012, that urged the office to act. "The American people have a right to know about Governor Romney's potential conflicts of interest, such as the profits his family made from the auto rescue," said UAW President Bob King. "It's time for Governor Romney to disclose or divest." The groups believe that Romneys undisclosed stock holdings create serious conflicts of interest. They point to the auto loans as a key example. The Nation recently reported that the Romney family personally profited by at least $15.3 million from the auto loans of 2009. Yet Romney's June 1, 2012, Public Financial Disclosure Report to the Office of Government Ethics did not reveal this windfall because he did not disclose the underlying holdings of his private equity and limited partnership funds.     Romney profited from his family's investment in Delphi Corp. at the expense of the Delphi workers. Other unreported investments that could create conflicts of interest include controversial holdings in Sensata and Global-Tech. The statement that Mitt Romney is "facing federal ethics charges" is at this point an exaggeration, however, as no charges have been issued against him by the federal government for violating ethics laws.  All that has happened is that some groups have sent a letter to the Office of Government Ethics requesting an investigation of Romney's financial disclosures, based on information of as-yet undetermined accuracy.  Whether sufficient basis will be found to merit an investigation, whether any such investigation will be conducted, what that investigation might find, and whether it would result in any criminal charges being brought against Mitt Romney are all matters of mere speculation. Last updated:  5 November 2012 In January 2020, a photograph supposedly showing a group of KKK members marching behind a presidential campaign sign for Donald Trump and Mike Pence was circulated on social media, along with a message saying "This is all you need to know about why you should vote Blue in 2020":   This is not a genuine photograph of KKK members holding a Trump-Pence sign. This a digitally manipulated image created from a photograph that originally featured a "Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" sign. The original photograph was taken in July 2009 and showed members of the Klan marching through Pulaski, Tennessee, in honor of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate army general who led the KKK in the 1860s:   The original picture was taken by Spencer Platt and is available via Getty Images with the following caption: Getty Images Members of the Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan participate in the 11th Annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Birthday march July 11, 2009 in Pulaski, Tennessee. With a poor economy and the first African-American president in office, there has been a rise in extremist activity in many parts of America. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War and played a role in the postwar establishment of the first Ku Klux Klan organization opposing the reconstruction era in the South. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) While the photograph of the KKK holding a Trump-Pence sign is fake, Trump did receive some support from the infamous group during the 2016 election. The official newspaper of the KKK, The Crusader, endorsed Trump for president. But the Trump campaign publicly rejected the Crusader's endorsement: "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign. rejected Sakuma, Amanda.  "KKK Paper 'The Crusader' Backs Trump; Campaign Rejects It."
  NBC News.  2 November 2016. On 29 January 2017, a community member at the Daily Kos posted in a string of tweets by "The Resisterhood" account, which claimed that because President Donald Trump had filed early for re-election, it means that nonprofit organizations cannotoppose him without risking their nonprofit status. The story, which was widely shared, was created in a portion of the site that allows Daily Kos community members to create their own posts: claimed   code Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. It is true that President Trump filed a letteron Inauguration Day, 20 January 2017, notifying the Federal Elections Commission that he has met the legal threshold for filing for reelection in 2020 (though the letter says that it is not a formal candidate announcement). letter The move appears to be geared toward getting a fundraising head start, as legal experts agree that Trump becoming a de facto candidate for 2020 on his first day in office will have no effecton the activities of charities. In the era of perpetual campaigning, tax laws have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service to mean that charities are free to criticize or praise public office holders so long as they avoid electioneering  which they are prohibited from doing anyway, said Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney whorepresents nonprofit organizations: Even though Trump is a candidate for the 2020 election now that he's registered, that really should not stop any charity from commenting on how hes doing as president of the United Statesnow as long as they don't put in in the context of the 2020 election...The reality is that as long as they don'tmention the election, which they shouldn't be doing anyway as charities, they're going to be fine. He added the caveat: "Thats assuming Trump obeys the law." The Lawyers Alliance for New York later sent out a notice addressing the rumor: notice False Rumor: Nonprofit organizations cannot criticize President Trump because he filed a Statement of Candidacy form with the Federal Election Commission regarding the 2020 election. True: Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot take a position on who should win an election, such as the 2020 Presidential election. But all public charities can: criticize or praise sitting public officials, including the President, for actions that they take while in office. take a position on issues, such as environment, refugees, or school reform. take a position on specific government actions, including Executive Orders, and proposed laws and regulations. Taking such a position may count towards a public charitys limit on lobbying activity, and if the charity spends more than a minimal amount of money on this activity it may be required to register as a lobbyist, but only if it asks a public official to act or asks members of the public to contact a public official. Notre Dame law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer agreed, saying in the modern era, most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning, whether they are formally declared as candidates or not: Charities can praise or criticize [for example] representativesas long as they do it in a way thats about them being in the House. The views [of the IRS] has always been obviously you can praise or criticize someone because they're a public official, as a public official, even if they're running. Loyola law professor Ellen Aprill concurred, noting that Trump himself had advocated for lifting the prohibition on charities and campaigning: It seems inconsistent with the intent behind the campaign intervention prohibition for a president to prevent 501(c)(3)'s from criticizing his policies and actions by declaring a candidacy so far in advance. Moreover, Trump is on record as wanting to eliminate the campaign intervention prohibition, although we have not seen anything on that since he became President. Nonprofits can address current topics like the environment, President Trump's proposal to build a new U.S.-Mexico border wall, or his recent executive order restricting refugee entry into the United States. They are also free to litigate on causes, as the American Civil Liberties Union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have done in recent high-profile cases. The fact that he has filed campaign paperwork with the FEC early does not mean any of these organizations are suddenly muzzled. Mayer also pointed out that pro-President Trump nonprofits are under the same laws as all the others, which casts further doubt on his early re-election filing being about anything other than getting a fundraising advantage. Pollwatcher."Trump Filed For Reelection In 2020 On Jan 20 2017. Why It Matters."
Daily Kos (community post).29 January 2017. The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Internal Revenue Service. Lawyers Alliance for New York."Nonprofit Organizations Can Speak Out About Controversial Government Actions."
31 January 2017. Gold, Matea, andNarayanswamy, Anu."Trump already has socked away more than $7 million for his 2020 reelection."
The Washington Post.31 January 2017. On May 18, 2023, a Twitter user shared a photograph of the late physicist Stephen Hawking sitting with a group of people in what appeared to be a tropical setting. The user claimed that Hawking was on the Caribbean island owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  In a tweet, @dom_lucre asked, "Serious question, why the hell was Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epstein's Island?" asked  (@@dom_lucre/X)  This is a real photograph of Hawking that shows him either on one of Epstein's private islands or on nearby St. Thomas Island, at an Epstein-sponsored conference. It was taken in March 2006, a few months before Epstein was charged with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor.  March 2006 charged Epstein, a financier who was later charged with sex trafficking, died in his prison cell in 2021 while awaiting trial (he previously had been convicted of other sex offenses). But before his fall, he was known for his parties and his extensive connections with high-profile celebrities, politicians, and intellectuals. He owned two private islands, Great St. James and Little St. James, which were prominent features in the civil and criminal cases against him. Numerous young women said in court papers that they were taken via private jet to Little St. James, where they were ordered to perform sex acts with Epstein and other men.  died owned said Hawking was just one of many scientists and intellectuals invited to these islands for less-sinister reasons  a scientific conference Epstein paid for. So how was Hawking brought into Epstein's orbit? For years, Epstein financed the Edge Foundation, billed as a salon for elite thinkers, which hosted prominent gatherings of scientists and intellectuals, and gave Epstein access to such circles. According to a Buzzfeed News investigation, Epstein's donations helped Edge carry out most of its activities, including an annual "billionaires dinner" that ceased to take place after his last contribution in 2015.  financed billed investigation An archived page from Edge.org describing Epstein's involvement can be seen here, where he was described as "a financier and science philanthropist." The website stated, "He is one of the largest supporters of individual scientists, including theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek."  Edge.org here In 2006, Epstein sponsored a conference at the neighboring St. Thomas Island. Per a March 2006 report in the St. Thomas Source, a local newspaper, prominent scientists gathered in a series of private meetings dubbed "Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology." Among those scientists was Hawking.  March 2006 Epstein was also described by the local report as the "driving force behind the conference." He reportedly said to the paper that he brought the group to St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists' minds to explore one of the 20th century's last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity? described "There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital 'F,'" Epstein reportedly said. reportedly The New York Times also reported in 2019 on Hawking's trip to this island (emphasis, ours): reported It was a five-day gathering in the Caribbean of some of the world's top scientists, including Dr. Hawking, to share ideas about gravity and cosmology, with scuba and catamaran excursions on the side. One evening, the participants had dinner on the beach at Mr. Epstein's private island. Some of the scientists noticed that Mr. Epstein "was always followed by a group of something like three or four young women," as Alan Guth, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it in an email to The Times, but they did not probe further. In another 2019 report, The New York Times described how, "Once, the scientists  including Mr. Hawking  crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered."  2019 report But where did the photograph come from? In 2006, The Edge Foundation also published a blog post on the conference and interviewed an attendee and organizer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Per the post (emphasis, ours): The Edge Foundation post The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event. We scrolled to the bottom of the page and found photographs of Hawking and more from the gathering. The photograph in question showed Hawking seated alongside Nobel Prize winner David Gross, and physicists Kip Thorne and Lisa Randall. Yet another shows Hawking on what appears to be the interior of a boat, captioned, "Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking on the way to Atlantis Submarine."  page (Screenshot via Edge.org) The New York Times described Epstein's allure for these scientists: The New York Times The lure for some of the scientists was Mr. Epstein's money. He dangled financing for their pet projects. Some of the scientists said that the prospect of financing blinded them to the seriousness of his sexual transgressions, and even led them to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings. The photograph of Hawking has been disseminated in the media, and is also publicly available on the website of the foundation once financed by Epstein, along with a description of the conference he attended, with the dates and details of the gathering matching up with reliable media reports. We thus rate this claim    "A Timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal." AP NEWS, 28 June 2022, https://apnews.com/article/epstein-maxwell-timeline-b9f15710fabb72e8581c71e94acf513e. Accessed 19 May 2023. Aldhous, Peter. "How Jeffrey Epstein Bankrolled An Exclusive Intellectual Boys Club And Reaped The Benefits." BuzzFeed News, 26 Sept. 2019, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-brockman-edge-foundation.Accessed 19 May 2023. Chappell, Bill. "Financier Buys Jeffrey Epstein's Private Islands, with Plans to Create a Resort." NPR, 4 May 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173956903/jeffrey-epstein-island-sold-st-james.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Jeffrey Epstein." Edge.Org. 5 Apr. 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190405211237/https:/www.edge.org/memberbio/jeffrey_epstein.Accessed 19 May 2023. Kantor, Jodi, et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway." The New York Times, 13 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Physicists Debate Gravity at St. Thomas Symposium." St. Thomas Source, 17 Mar. 2006, https://stthomassource.com/content/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium/.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Pictured: Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epsteins 'Sex-Slave Island.'" The Independent, 13 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epstein-s-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Stephen Hawking Pictured on Jeffrey Epstein's "Island of Sin."" Telegraph, 12 Jan. 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking/11340494/Stephen-Hawking-pictured-on-Jeffrey-Epsteins-Island-of-Sin.html. Accessed 19 May 2023. Stewart, James B., et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA." The New York Times, 31 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO." Edge.Org. 6 Mar. 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230306164658/https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Who Was Jeffrey Epstein? The Financier Charged with Sex Trafficking." BBC News, 8 July 2019. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48913377.Accessed 19 May 2023. In February 2016, the transcriptof a speech Hillary Clinton purportedly gave to Goldman Sach's on 4 June 2013 started circulating online: The following is a leaked transcript of Hillary Clintons 1st speech to Goldman Sachs delivered on 6/04/2013. Two other speeches are also rumored to be in circulation. This is the full transcript. Secretary Clinton received $225,000 for this speech. HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Lloyd [Blankfein], and thanks to everyone at Goldman Sachs for welcoming me today. Im delighted to be back among friends, colleagues, collaborators, supporters, kindred spirits Let me jump right in. You know, over the past few months, there have been popular concerns about an economy that still isnt delivering for the majority of Americans. Its not delivering the way that they feel it should, that they feel entitled to. Most Americans that you speak to, speak a populist rhetoric that claims it is stacked for those at the top, that those of you here have it too good. (Laughter) But we know the hopes that the little people have for their future  things like school, job, food, clothing on their backs all of those little things would not be possible without your leadership and innovation. Several publications,such asBSNews, CounterPunch,andDissident Voice, lent credence to thetranscripts when they published them in full.These web sites all attributed itstext to author K.J. Noh, who is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign. BSNews CounterPunch Dissident Voice While the aforementioned web sites are not exclusively satirical publications, they do occasionally (as is the case above)publishsatire: BSNews, in stark contrast, is here to tell you the truth. We pride ourselves on covering the news stories the corporate media wont dare touch. We will from time to time take satirical side swipes at journalists within the MSM (see Special Reports) and we will be producing spoof media animations (see Podcast) but we will never deliberately lie or mislead OUR audience about the most important news stories of the day. While we couldn't find any indication that BSNewshad labeled the above-quoted story as satire,Counter Punchfeatured a "satire alert" at the top of its article and theDissident Voice(where thepurported transcript of Clinton's speech first appeared) filed the story as piece of fiction:   The transcripts of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs have not been leaked or published anywhere on the internet. When the Democratic presidential candidate was asked about the speeches she made during a town hall meeting on 18 February 2016, she said that she would releasethemwhen the other candidates did the same: release At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand. Mrs. Clinton had told him, I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups. Claim:  President Obama's November 2010 trip to India will cost taxpayers $200 million per day.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] I have no first hand knowledge of this, just passing along. I could not belive this was true (but had also heard it on the air, thought was hype), but when you Google it and read a number of sites, it does appear to be true.  Tell him to stay there !!!  Just in case some of you dont follow current events as closely as I do (yes, I am a "news-junkie")  you may have missed the following information since it never appears in our wonderful newspapers or on most TV news.  The Barack Obama family is leaving tomorrow for a ten day trip to India .  This is going to be an historical and incredible trip, mostly in the numbers of people going, costs, etc.  1)       The entourage will include THREE THOUSAND  people 2)       FORTY aircraft will be making this trip 3)       TWO marine helicopters are being dismantled, flown to India, put back together to fly the Obamas around the country 4)       The entire 500 room Taj Mahal Hotel has been reserved for this group 5)       Cost is estimated to be $200 million PER DAY for ten days 6)       Keep this in mind when you get the next notice of an increase in your taxes!!! No one should ever wonder  why taxpayers are angry about this type of extravagance while most citizens are struggling with day-to-day costs of living, etc. Origins:  On 2 November 2010, the Press Trust of India published an article about U.S. President Barack Obama's upcoming 10-day Asian trip (scheduled to begin in India, followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), stating that  the American chief executive would be accompanied by a contingent of 3,000 people and would be taking over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Palace hotel during his stay in Mumbai, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of about $200 million per day.  Another report from the same source claimed the President would be "protected by a fleet of 34 warships" during his time in Mumbai: article report "The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said. About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments. [President Obama] will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there. "Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity. The information from that Indian article was quickly picked up and repeated as fact by a number of media outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere, but its veracity is dubious.  The only source for the claim about the mind-blowing $200 million per day expense outlay was a single foreign news report which quoted an anonymous Indian official and provided no detail whatsoever (or even a general explanation) about how the $200 million sum was derived or could possibly be expended. Any presidential trip abroad (the purpose of this trip is official business, not a personal "vacation," as claimed by some sources) involves considerable expense to transport and house security officials and presidential aides and staffers, and those costs will likely be on the higher side for this tripsince President Obama will be traveling to a city which was recently the target of terrorist attacks  and will be attending the G20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea, along with other world leaders (all of which requiresheightened security, as well as the presence of additional numbers of U.S. government officials).   G20 Summit However, citing a cost figure of $200 million per day stretches credulity to the breaking point: That number would entail a total outlay of $400 million for the two-day visit (a whopping $2 billion if the cost were applied across the entire ten-day trip), and even if President Obama were accompanied by a prodigious 3,000-person entourage, with the U.S. government picking up the entire tab for all of them, the U.S. would have to be spending the unbelievably staggering sum of $66,000 per person per day to reach that figure.   And, as the the Wall Street Journal observed, the details of the report are "demonstrably incorrect," and it certainly isn't the case that the U.S. will be picking up the tab for everyone traveling with the president: The report is demonstrably incorrect. It says the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai  it hasn't  and that the press traveling with Mr. Obama will be staying there. We won't. Besides, the press pays its own way at considerable cost to the media outlets, not the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, U.S. officials disclaimed numeric figures cited for the President's Asian visit as "wildly inflated" and "absurd": White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," Vietor said.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.  "I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia  that's just comical. "Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.  A military official also [said] the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most. Moreover, CNN  noted that the cost of similar trips undertaken by other presidents came nowhere close to the $200 million per day figure being claimed of President Obama's Asian visit: While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involving about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation. The U.S. government isn't likely to be forthcoming with a cost breakdown for President Obama's Asia trip (particularly since a large chunk of the expenses necessarily involve security arrangements, which obviously can't be publicly outlined or detailed), but it's probably safe to say that the ultimate cost will be well short of the claimed $200 million per diem figure. Some readers who inquired about this item amusingly garbled its details, mistaking Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace hotel for the famous Taj Mahal mausoleum in Agra: Is it true that President Obama rented the entire Taj Mahal and is bringing in the near future, thousands of people to a meeting there? Last updated:  5 November 2010     Martinez, Luis.  "Pentagon Dismisses Reports of 34 Warships for Obama Trip Security."   ABCNews.com.   4 November 2010.     Robinson, Dan.  "Obama Aims to Expand, Strengthen Relationships on 10-Day Asia Trip."   VOANews.com.   1 November 2010.     Weisman, Jonathan.  "Fuzzy Math Dogs Obama's Asia Trip."   The Wall Street Journal.   4 November 2010.     CNN.com.  "Debunking the Myth: The Cost of Obama's Trip to Asia."   5 November 2010.     Economic Times.  "Force One Inspect Venues of Obama's Visit."   3 November 2010.     FOXNews.com.  "Security Entourage Earning Epic Reputation Ahead of Obama India Visit."   4 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "US to Spend USD 200 Mn a Day on Obama's Mumbai Visit."   2 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "White House Paraphernalia to Be in India for Obama Visit."   4 November 2010. A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. Claim:  Wayne Allyn Root opined that President Obama will lose his re-election bid in 2012 by a landslide. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Root, May 2012] Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races. Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I dont believe its possible to turnaround America. But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980. Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge? [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  Wayne Allyn Root, a political commentator who was the Libertarian Party's 2008  vice presidential candidate, is a regular contributor to FOX News and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.  He writes political opinion columns published on Townhall.com,and his entry for 30 May 2012 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide." Wayne Allyn Root columns article Last updated:  11 June 2012 Claim:  George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin's parents for their failure to control their son.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Facebook is sharing that George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin's parents for failure to control him. I find this very difficult tobelieve.  I think this is bogus.   Origins:  On 15 July 2013,  the National Report published an article ("George Zimmerman Files Civil Suit Against Trayvon Martin's Parents") about acquitted defendant George Zimmerman's having filed a civil lawsuit against the parents of the teenager he shot, Trayvon Martin: article George Zimmerman filed a civil suit today just before 5PM EST at the Seminole County, Florida, Courthouse. The suit alleges the parents of Trayvon Martin, failed to control their minor-age son on the evening of February 26, 2012, when Martin repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman, placing him in imminent fear for his life and  resulting in the death of Martin. The civil action specifies that Zimmerman acted in self defense resulting in the case being ruled a justifiable homicide by a jury trial that ended on Saturday with a verdict of not guilty. Desperate state prosecutors charged the victim with 2nd degree murder though they had no evidence of a crime and hoping to stay off more violence and having Florida put to the torch at the criminal hands of rioters months before the start of the states tourist season. The complaint further specifies Zimmerman shares "zero-liability" in the death of Martin as he acted without malice and solely in self-defense. The amount of damages Zimmerman is seeking are unspecified. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site which publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." Last updated:  16 July 2013 Since at least 2008, a troubling image of a turtle with a drastically deformed shell has been circulating online, with multiple web sites employing it to illustrate posts about the dangers of plastic pollution in the oceans. The image shows a brown-colored turtle with a shell constricted in the middle, giving her a figure-eight shape: circulating  This image captures a snapping turtle named Mae West who currently resides at the STAR Eco Station in Los Angeles, California, where she is in good health. A representative from the station, which operates a wildlife rescue and environmental science museum, told us Mae West was rescuednearly two decades ago after she was discovered with a plastic milk jug ring around her midsection, although though it was unclear exactly how long the ring had been in place: In 2000, she was discovered in Louisiana with a plastic milk jug ring around the width of her shell. In addition to having an extremely narrow midsection, she was also found to be carrying several eggs at the time. The handler in Louisiana decided that she was no longer able to care for her and arranged to haveMaeplaced at the Eco Station. Some of the blogsposting this image in early 2017 incorrectly claimed the turtle had been caught in a rubber band from an early age, causing her to grow abnormally. Mae West was brought to her current home after being cared for by an anti-pollution non-profit called The 5 Gyers Institute, also based in Los Angeles. The image shown above was used in a 2009 Earth Day report by Oprah Winfrey discussing the effects of plastic pollution on marine life: used Sadly, the type of deformity afflicting Mae West isn't unique. Another famous turtle is living with a similar human-caused deformity: Peanut, a red-eared slider turtle who was rescued and nursed to health after being discovered entrapped in a plastic six-pack ring, has often been misidentified as Mae West (and vice-versa) in photographs. Peanut Peanut was found in Missouri in 1993 and taken to a zoo, where the plastic ring was removed from his midsection. The turtle (who was for years mistakenly believed to be female) is currently under the care of the Missouri Department of Conservation. Photographs provided by the department show he does indeed resemble a peanut:   Despite his deformation, Peanut has also managed to live a long and healthy life and is now believed to be a senior terrapin at 32 or 33 years old, said Dan Zarlenga, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Had he not been found and cared for by humans, Peanut probably would not have survived for long in the wild. Eriksen, Marcus."Meet the Famous Turtle With a Serious Plastic Problem."
Planet Experts.6 July 2015. Missouri Department of Conservation."The Story of Peanut the Turtle." Monks, Kieron. "The Plastic Plague: Can Our Oceans Be Saved From Environmental Ruin?
CNN.2 September 2016. Moore, Charles."Choking the Oceans With Plastic."
The New York Times.25 August 2015.