Did the Trump Admin Seize COVID-19 Protective Equipment from States?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the U.S. federal government and states clashed over how to respond to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020, workers on the frontlines of helping virus patients reported widespread shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 masks and gowns. Hospital and state leaders described a chaotic and highly competitive market for securing supplies from vendors  disarray that critics of President Donald Trump blamed on his ad-hoc approach to addressing the shortfall. COVID-19 ad-hoc shortfall Meanwhile, several news reports surfaced, claiming federal officials seized PPE shipments from local agencies or stopped the deals between vendors and states by offering higher bids. Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers about the validity of the assertion.    To get to the root of the claim, we first researched from where the news reports originated. From The New York Times to the Boston Globe to The Intelligencer (a blog within New York magazine), several media outlets highlighted the experience of Dr. Andrew W. Artenstein, an infectious disease physician in Springfield, Massachusetts, who said the pandemic has forced him into PPE supply-chain work. On April 17, 2020, he published a letter in a peer-reviewed medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, about his apparent travails of getting a large shipment of face masks and respirators from a warehouse in a mid-Atlantic state. (He told The New York Times he would not publicize the location of the transaction out of fear of jeopardizing his relationship with the supply vendor.) The letter read: The New York Times Boston Globe The Intelligencer letter Before we could send the funds by wire transfer, two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived, showed their badges, and started questioning me. No, this shipment was not headed for resale or the black market. The agents checked my credentials, and I tried to convince them that the shipment of PPE was bound for hospitals. After receiving my assurances and hearing about our health systems urgent needs, the agents let the boxes of equipment be released and loaded into the trucks. But I was soon shocked to learn that the Department of Homeland Security was still considering redirecting our PPE. Only some quick calls leading to intervention by our congressional representative prevented its seizure.  It is unclear why federal officials may have targeted the Massachusetts delivery or where they would have allegedly redirected the supplies. Citing a policy of not confirming or denying specific investigations, the FBI declined to comment on Artenstein's account in an April 20 New York Times story, saying only that the agency had been working to ensure that PPE "is not being unlawfully distributed or hoarded" during the coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, the Boston Globe could not reach the Department of Homeland Security, which encompasses FEMA, to comment on the doctor's story. story Though widely circulated online, Artenstein's story was not the only report of federal interference in the procurement of PPE in spring 2020. On April 7, the Los Angeles Times reported health care officials in seven states said the federal government seized their shipments and did not give guidance on how or if the local agencies would someday get the supplies they ordered. "Are they stockpiling this stuff? Are they distributing it? We dont know," one unidentified official told the LA Times. "And are we going to ever get any of it back if we need supplies? It would be nice to know these things.  reported Additionally, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told The New York Times that FEMA stepped in at the last minute of a deal the city had with "one of its usual suppliers" to buy 1 million masks; a New Jersey county official told local media an order of 35,000 N95 and other masks were "commandeered" by the federal government; and a leader of the private health care company Kaiser Permanente told staff members that the company had found 20 million masks to purchase, "but the feds actually seized that shipment before we were able to acquire it," the Times reported. The same news story said: local media Kaiser Permanente In Massachusetts, state leaders said they had confirmed a vast order of personal protective equipment for their health workers; then the Trump administration took control of the shipments. In Kentucky, the head of a hospital system told members of Congress that his broker had pulled out of an agreement to deliver four shipments of desperately needed medical gear after the supplies were commandeered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado thought his state had secured 500 ventilators before they were swept up by FEMA. Adding to those reports are worries by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker that if he publicly discusses how he's obtaining masks and gloves for his state, federal officials may catch wind and seize the materials, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. "The supply chain has been likened to the wild West, and once you have purchased supplies, ensuring they get to the state is another herculean feat," a spokesperson for the governor told the news outlet.  Chicago Sun-Times likened to the wild West, The reports began surfacing around the time the Trump administration launched a new public-private partnership to quickly distribute mass shipments of protective gear to the U.S. from factories overseas. The so-called Project Airbridge initiative (championed by Jared Kushner, the presidents son-in-law and senior adviser) came after repeated requests from the president for states to handle the supply issue themselves, allegations from some local leaders that the federal government was distributing the equipment unfairly, and Trump choosing FEMA to replace the Department of Health and Human Services as the leading agency to respond to the crisis, a move that changed how states submit formal requests for supplies from the national stockpile. some local leaders national stockpile. Explaining the spring 2020 initiative, FEMA said in a statement that the agency redirects roughly half of each international shipment to U.S. locations it has deemed in highest need, using COVID-19 data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Simultaneously, the agency said it is sending the remainder of orders to businesses, health care facilities and counties that have placed orders in the past. statement Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  Yet despite the claims from state and hospital leaders, the federal government has not explicitly said it is confiscating or blocking PPE orders at the local level  nor explained why it would. It also has not outlined a long-range plan for the alleged intervention efforts, or how the supplies would be divvied up. FEMA officials' response to the allegations include, in chronological order: Gov. Charlie Baker confiscated masks Given the amount of reports from state officials and health care leaders claiming that federal officials seized or blocked PPE orders, and those accounts' level of specificity and apparent validity, we rate this claim "true"  with the caveat that the intervention efforts appear to be a part of a broader distribution plan that purportedly aims to get supplies to regions with the most urgent needs. Arango, Tim, et al.  Doctors and Governors Vie for Masks in Cloak-and-Dagger Deals.
 The New York Times.  20 April 2020. Artenstein, Andrew.  In Pursue of PPE.
 New England Journal of Medicine.  17 April 2020. Rosen, Andy.  Mass. hospital executive says he was questioned by FBI while buying equipment.
 Boston Globe.  19 April 2020. Healy, Beth.  Miscommunication, Missing Supplies Strain COVID-19 Coordination Between Mass. And FEMA.
 WBUR.  11 April 2020. Wallace-Wells, David.  The White House Has Erected a Blockade Stopping States and Hospitals from Getting Coronavirus PPE.
 New York Intelligencer.  19 April 2020. FEMA.  FEMA COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force: Supply Chain Stabilization.
 8 April 2020. WCVB.  3 million masks ordered by Massachusetts were confiscated in Port of New York, leading to creative alternative.
 2 April 2020. Main, Frank.  Pritzker arranging secret flights from China to bring millions of masks and gloves to Illinois.
 Chicago Sun-Times.  14 April 2020. Bowman, Bill.  Feds Take All Of Countys 35,000 Mask Order Targeted For Health Care Workers.
 Franklin Reporter and Advocate.  3 April 2020. Nicas, Jack and Kanno-Youngs, Zolan.  Swept Up by FEMA: Complicated Medical Supply System Sows Confusion.
 The New York Times.  6 April 2020. Olorunnipa, Toluse, et. al.  Governors plead for medical equipment from federal stockpile plagued by shortages and confusion.
 The Washington Post.  31 March 2020. Rose, Joel.  A War For Medical Supplies: States Say FEMA Wins By Poaching Orders.
 National Public Radio.  15 April 2020.

 DePillis, Lydia.  Heres Why Florida Got All the Emergency Medical Supplies It Requested While Other States Did Not.
 ProPublica.  20 March 2020. Levey, Noam.  Hospitals say feds are seizing masks and other coronavirus supplies without a word.
 Los Angeles Times.  7 April 2020.
Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."   [New York] Daily News.  14 September 1999  (p. 5).     Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). An image circulated via social media purported to offer a 1978 New Year's resolution offered by future U.S. Sen. and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, as solicited by a newspaper in his home state of Vermont: Bernie Sanders, erstwhile leader of the Liberty Union, Vermont's much-weakened third party: "In 1978, as in other years, I hope to be able to play some role in making working people aware that the present day reality of poverty, wage slavery and mind-destroying media and schools is not the only reality -- but simply a pathetic presentation brought to us by a handful of power-hungry individuals who own and control our economy."  Sanders began his electoral political career with the newly formed Liberty Union Party in 1971, serving (unsuccessfully) as the party's gubernatorial candidate for Vermont in 1972 and 1976 and as its U.S. Senate candidate in 1972 and 1974. The circumstance that Liberty Union candidates never had any realistic chance of winning office provided them, in Sander's words, with the chance "to get up and say exactly what they meant with no compromise." Sanders left the Liberty Union Party in October 1977, however, citing the party's failure to "remain active, on a year-round basis, in the struggles of working people against the banks and corporations that own and control Vermont." Liberty Union Party words October 1977 It was around the time Sanders resigned from the Liberty Union Party that the Daily Herald newspaper of Rutland, Vermont, solicited him as one of the "politicians, people in the news, [and] people in the street" to answer the question "What do you want to accomplish in 1978?" Sanders' answer was, as reproduced above, published in the paper's Jan. 1, 1978 edition:  Jaffe, Harry.  "For the New Year, I Resolve ..."
  Rutland Daily Herald.  1 January 1978. Associated Press.  "Liberty Union Party Chief in Vermont Quits Position."
  Nashua Telegraph.  12 October 1977  (p.10). In 1975, photographer Garry Gross took several nude photographs of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields that were later published in a Playboy publication called Sugar and Spice. This series of photographs has been the source for controversy for decades. But many internet users were blissfully unaware of the images until one appeared in a meme featuring a photograph of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and passed around on social media:   The girl in the background of this meme is indeed a naked 10-year-old Shields, and the photograph was truly published by Playboy. Although this meme may have given some viewers the impression that the image appeared in Playboy magazine itself, the picture was actually featured in the Playboy Press publication Sugar and Spice. The above-displayed photograph is one of many that Gross took with the consent of Shields' mother, Teri Shields, in 1975. In 1981, with Sugar and Spice out of print and Shields' profile on the rise, Shields sued Gross, arguing that the photographer should not be allowed to continue to profit from the images, and that the photographs would cause her irreparable harm.  sued The lawsuit was dismissed in a 4-3 decision by the New York State Supreme Court. Justice Edward Greenfield stated that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" except to "possibly perverse minds," and that while the images might cause Shields personal embarrassment, they did not constitute "irreparable harm" as Shields' profile had risen in the years since the photographs were taken. decision Greenfield also criticized Shields' mother for trying to "have it both ways," saying the actress had starred in provocative roles in movies such as Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby:  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com Here's an excerpt from a contemporaneous article published by the Washington Post: Washington Post Washington Post: It was Mom who decided six years ago to let Gross take pictures of her nude daughter for a book, published the next year by Playboy Press, called "Sugar and Spice." Then a funny thing happened to little Brooke: she burst out of her cocoon and turned into a great big star, just like that. Suddenly the pictures acquired a new and alluring value; and suddenly Brooke and Mom decided that, with the book out of print, Gross had no business peddling the pictures anywhere else, even though Mom had signed a release for them. So they went to court, where Justice Greenfield ruled against them. He said that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" and that Brooke would not suffer irreparable damage if they were republished; he ruled that Gross had not violated the terms of the release. And so long as he was at it, Justice Greenfield delivered himself of a tidy lecture on the subject of stage motherhood. He described Teri Shields as "a concerned mother"; he said she lived not merely "for" her daughter but also "through" her. He said that her behavior was "maternally protective and exploitative," that she wanted "to have it both ways" by representing Brooke as "sexually provocative and exciting while attempting to preserve her innocence." An appellate court overturned the decision, but in 1983 the original verdict was upheld. upheld This wasn't the only time these nude images of Shields were at the center of a controversy. In 2009, artist Richard Prince, known for "reproduction" photography, used one of Gross' images of Shields for an artwork entitled "Spiritual America." The photograph was set to be displayed at the Tate Modern Gallery, but it was removed after Scotland Yard suggested that it might violate London's obscenity laws. violate Associated Press.  "Judge Lambasts Actress' Mother."
  11 November 1981. Higgins, Charlotte and Vikram Dodd.  "Tate Modern Removes Naked Brooke Shields Picture After Police Visit."
  The Guardian.  30 September 2009. Yardley, Jonathan.  "Sugar and Spice and Not Nice."
  The Washington Post.  16 November 1981. Gambardello, Joseph.  "Judge Scolds Brooke Shields' Mother for Exploiting Daughter."
  UPI.  11 November 1981. Turner, Christopher  "Sugar and Spice and All Things Not So Nice."
  The Guardian.  2 October 2009. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 Criticizing a poke at his not releasing millions of dollars to support public schools, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said that doing so might cut into double-digit returns on investments managed by the General Land Office.In aletterhe made public Aug. 22, 2012, Patterson, a Republican, said that those who want him to transfer $300 million in investment earnings to the State Board of Education for school needs do not understand the value of keeping such money invested so the states education endowment, the Permanent School Fund, continues to gain value.A pro-Democratic group, Progress Texas, accuses Patterson of inappropriately hoarding the millions. Patterson counters that the School Land Board, which he chairs, has discretion over whether to transfer the money and, he told us by telephone, it has until September 2013 to decide. His spokesman, Jim Suydam, also told us by email that the board approved a resolution in early 2011 to release $250 million of earnings in both 2012 and 2013 to the State Board of Education.In his letter, Patterson said that draining off additional earnings as Progress Texas says he must is a bad choice... because last year the GLO-managed PSF earned 22 percent and, due to statutory liquidity requirements, the rainy day fund earned just 1 percent. He was comparing the portion of the Permanent School Fund managed by the land office to earnings on the states savings account, otherwise known as the Economic Stabilization Fund. If your family needed a quick infusion of cash, Patterson wrote, would you withdraw cash from the investment account earning 22 percent or the account earning 1 percent?Were not venturing that question, but wondered if Patterson made an accurate earnings comparison.Starting in 2005, the land office was given the authority to invest in real estate using proceeds received from selling lands or drawing on revenue from Permanent School Fund mineral leases and royalties, the agency notes on aweb page. Professional fund management firms oversee the investments, the agency says, while theland board, consisting of the commissioner and two citizen appointees, manages the sale of Permanent School Fund land and mineral leases.To our inquiry, Suydam provided an agency report to the Legislature stating that through March 2012, the market value of the agencys investments made from the Permanent School Fund was $3.077 billion, about half of that reflecting externally managed direct real estate investments and nearly $1.2 billion attributable to short-term investments in the states treasury, which Suydam later said means money set aside so its on call for the agencys real estate investments.The report, dated Sept. 1, 2012, says that gross time-weighted returns on the portfolio in the 12 months through March amounted to nearly 22.9 percent, though that is without considering the short-term investments. Counting the cash-on-call portion, the report says, the time-weighted returns on the portfolio were 13.03 percent.Time-weighted returns?By email, Suydam told us the term describes a complex calculation that uses values for every day in the period being measured which, he said, explains why the 23 percent return shown for the real estate investments does not align with the 30 percent return that we calculated by comparing the market value of those investments at the end of March 2012 to the comparable figure at the end of March 2011.Asked how the earnings on real estate through March 2012 compare to recent 12-month periods, Suydam said such investments generated nearly 14 percent in market value in the 12 months through March 2011, but lost about 15 percent in the 12 months through March 2010.We checked on the rainy day funds earnings with Lauren Willis, spokeswoman for State Comptroller Susan Combs, who oversees state finances.Willis said by email that money in the reserve fund, created in 1988, is invested like other funds in the states treasury in stable, high-quality investments. In 2011, Willis said, the average yield on all those funds was 0.74 percent -- generating nearly $194 million in interest income including $51.9 million added to the rainy day fund. R.J. DeSilva, another Combs spokesman, said by email the rate of return might or might not have been about the same through the 12 months running through March 2012.In a telephone interview, we asked Patterson about why his letter mentions the higher returns on the real estate investments alone rather than also taking into account the lower returns influenced by the agencys cash-on-call funds.I dont count the cash, Patterson replied, because its not part of our investment portfolio.The land office, Patterson noted, is limited by law to managing just part of the overall education endowment. Suydam later said by email that as of the end of March, the market value of the agencys portion of the PSF, not including the value of minerals or state-owned land, was nearly $3.1 billion. He said the State Board of Education oversaw the funds remaining $25.6 billion.Our rulingPattersons reference to 22 percent in earnings over the 12 months running through March 2012 does not account for reduced earnings from nearly $1.2 billion in cash-on-call money supporting the agencys real estate investments. That clarification would be helpful, though it still seems reasonable, overall, to focus on the portion of the portfolio that would be expected to reap sizable gains. Separately, the claim seems to reflect the annual earnings on the rainy day fund, though the commissioners March-to-March time period does not match the calendar-year approach used by the state comptroller.We rate the statement as Mostly True. Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013 Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is a threat to the existence of polar bears that, if left unabated, may push many some groups to the brink of local extinction by the end of the century -- and thats under conservative estimates. More likely, research published in a July 2020 issue of Nature Climate Change suggests that most of the species will be extinct by 2100.  Nature Climate Change Previously, we knew that polar bears would ultimately disappear unless we halt greenhouse gas rise. But knowing when they will begin to disappear in different areas is critical for informing management and policy -- and inspiring action, said study co-author Steven Amstrup, chief scientist of Polar Bears International, in a statement. statement We found that moderate emissions reductions may prolong global persistence, but are not likely to prevent the extirpation of several populations, emphasizing the urgency of more ambitious emissions cuts. Amstrup and a team of researchers from Polar Bears International and several North American universities determined for the first time when polar bears are likely to go extinct due to a loss of sea ice, which provides crucial hunting grounds during the summer months, by analyzing 13 of 19 Arctic polar bear subpopulations, which collectively make up about 80% of the species. Other groups were omitted because of their remote locations, making them difficult to study. A framework was developed to determine how different weights of polar bears may make them better or worse equipped to survive longer fasting periods as well as the amount of energy expended during this time -- what they call the fasting impact threshold -- and compared this data with the projected future number of days that the Arctic is likely to be sea-ice-free based on observations made between 1979 and 2016. Polar Bears International By estimating how thin and how fat polar bears can be, and modeling their energy use, we were able to calculate the threshold number of days that polar bears can fast before cub and/or adult survival rates begin to decline, said Professor Pter Molnr of the University of Toronto, Scarborough.   Polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt seal prey, but in recent years declining levels have made it increasingly difficult for bears to feed. Sea ice is frozen ocean water that forms in the fall, grows in the winter, and eventually melts back into the ocean in the summer, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. But NOAA notes that observations in recent decades suggest that minimum sea ice -- that is, the lowest level each September -- is declining at a rate of more than 12% each decade since the 1970s. As sea ice declines, polar bears are forced ashore or to less productive waters and more time spent searching for food means that they are spending longer periods of time fasting and using up vital energy reserves built over the winter. National Snow and Ice Data Center NOAA Scientists calculated the timeliness of risk to determine how individual polar bear populations might be affected by two different futures based on greenhouse gas projections. If current greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, a scenario colloquially known as business-as-usual, researchers project that all but a few of the polar bear subpopulations will collapse by the end of the century, leaving only those living in the high Arctic. Though moderate emissions will likely prolong the survival rates of some, it is likely that at least some of the population will become locally extinct within this century. business-as-usual By keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, as was set forth by the Paris Agreement, it is still likely that most of the polar bear population will experience reproductive failure by 2080. Paris Agreement  Polar bears have long been seen as a bellwether, highlighting what might happen to some of the planets most vulnerable species in the face of climate change. A 2019 assessment conducted by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that sea ice loss resulting from climate change posed the most serious threat to polar bear survivals, but determining how and when the species may go extinct has been a challenge to the scientific community. Polar Bear Specialist Group IUCN Some polar bear subpopulations were further shown to be more impacted by environmental conditions differently. In the southernmost areas, total sea-ice melt forces local bears ashore every summer and they must largely rely on energy reserves from winter hunting for their survival and to produce enough milk for their cubs. The researchers add that their timeline projections are probably conservative and predict that many of the subpopulations will likely pass their threshold earlier. This is due to the high probability that researchers underestimated bears metabolic rate and assumed in their calculations that the large animals spend less energy on thermoregulation or growth than they do in reality. Environmental and physiological differences in bear subpopulations also play a role in how likely they are to pass their threshold sooner. For example, bears that hunt in areas like the Southern Beaufort Sea with fragmented sea-ice are likely to use far more energy than is gained by feeding -- a potential difference of up to four times more energy than bears who hunt in Western Hudson Bay, which the scientists note render their baseline timelines optimistic. The International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species lists polar bears as vulnerable and estimates that there are between 22,000 and 31,000 individuals left worldwide, up to 80% of which are found in Canada. Though some subpopulations appear to be rebounding, in part due to measures placed on historical hunting, at least four groups are experiencing population decreases. vulnerable Molnr, Pter, et al.  "Fasting Season Length Sets Temporal Limits for Global Polar Bear Persistence."
  Nature Climate Change.  20 July 2020. Polar Bears International.  "When Will Polar Bear Populations Likely Start Collapsing?"
  20 July 2020. World Wildlife Fund.  "Polar Bear Assessment Brings Good and Troubling News."
  October 2019. In March 2016, photos showing a bottle of Coca-Cola with the words "share a Coke with the KKK" written on its label started circulating online:    This is not a real product sold by Coca-Cola. While the "Share a Coke" campaign allows Coca-Cola drinkers to personalize their cans, some words or phrases (such as "KKK") are not available:    The image showing the "KKK" bottle was created for an online petition on the web site Color Of Change, asking the company to pull its sponsorship of the Republican National Convention due to Donald Trump's failure to condemn the KKK in an interview: petition interview Even with Trump refusing to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan this weekend and declaring All Lives Matter at a rally, Coca-Cola and other companies still have not canceled their sponsorship of the RNC. How can Coca-Cola, a company that heavily markets to and profits from Black people, fund a platform for a presidential nominee that is being bolstered into office by former Grand Wizard David Duke, the KKK, and other white supremacists? The petition presupposes both that Coca-Cola will be sponsoring the 2016 Republican National Convention, and that Coca-Cola would be effectively endorsing the Ku Klux Klan by sponsoring the RNC. On 23 February 2016, representatives from the advocacy groups ColorofChange, Americas Voice, CREDO Action, Million Hoodies, MoveOn, and Presente.org admitted as much in an open letter to Coca-Cola and other alleged sponsors of the 2016 RNC: letter Based on your corporate sponsorship of the 2012 Republican National Convention we have reason to believe that your company is planning to again sponsor the RNC this year. We believe it is a sign of strong corporate leadership for you and your company to refrain from sponsoring Donald Trumps hateful and divisive rhetoric. While Coca-Cola did sponsor the Republican National Convention in 2012, the company also sponsored the Democratic National Convention that year: sponsored Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week's Republican National Convention. "The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success," said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Dec. 21 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Its aim was to merge a COVID-19 relief bill with the annual appropriations bill that allocates funds for the federal government. For COVID-19 relief, the bill authorized a one-time payment of $600 to most Americans  an amount criticized as inadequate compared to the economic suffering it seeks to mitigate. passed most Americans criticized One popular tweet expressing this frustration asserted that each member of "Congress made almost $100,000 during the time they were arguing whether or not we deserved $600." popular tweet   The veracity of this statement depends at least in part on how the assertion is specifically defined, but in general it is factually defensible. Members of Congress  both senators and representatives  each get paid $174,000 per year. What remains to be defined is the amount of time they spent "arguing" over the bill that provided a $600 stimulus check. $174,000 per year In our view, it is fair to say that the fight for a second stimulus check began the moment after the CARES Act (which included authorization of a $1200 stimulus payment) was signed into law on March 27, 2020. There was bipartisan recognition that this massive spending bill would be insufficient to combat the economic problems caused by COVID-19. "The minute were done with phase three," Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt said to The Hill on March 27, referring to the CARES act, "well start talking about phase four because all of us know that phase three cant have included everything that needs to be included. For Democrats, this explicitly included a desire for further direct payments to individual American citizens. Even before CARES officially became law, on March 25, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN, "We'll get more direct payments in another bill." CARES Act said told CNN The "fight" over these direct payments, then, started as the first checks were authorized. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was approved and sent to the president for his signature (or potential veto) on Dec. 21, 2020. potential veto Dec. 21, 2020 Using these endpoints, the period of time "during" which this debate occurred would be 269 days. This represents 74% of the year. The most straightforward solution to the question would be to take 74% of the annual $174,000 salary. By this math, each lawmaker made at least $128,760 "during" the time it took the bill to pass. 269 days $128,760 More restricted definitions might argue for a shorter time period of debate or argue that only days in which Congress was in session should count. The fact that politicians were talking about a second check even before CARES act was signed, however, makes that argument a hard sell. Because debates surrounding COVID-19 stimulus are not limited to session days, the latter argument does not make much sense either. As such, a simple approach that looks only at the amount of time it took members of Congress to pass a second bill suggests earnings of over $100,000 each, leading us to rank the claim  in session Claim:  A Canadian housewife penned the 'I'll care if . . ." polemic.     Examples: Could not have said this any better myself! especially today  The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it! ===================== WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all! I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia. I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and  you guessed it  I don't care!" I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!!!!! [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] British Housewife Speaks Out Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?. Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister! Written by a housewife, to her daily newspaper. This is one ticked off lady. 'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York on 11 Sept 2001, and have continually threatened to do so since? Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in London , and in downtown Manhattan , and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crimepunishable by beheading in Afghanistan I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank: I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! you guessed it ...... I don't care!! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add: 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.' I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this. Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The British Soldier. 3. The Canadian Soldier. 4. The US Soldier, and 5. The Australian Soldier One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THEM. AMEN Origins:  Although the first example quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster who resides in Atlanta and the second to an unnamed British housewife, the article is actually the work of Doug Patton, a freelance columnist and political speechwriter who lives near Omaha, Nebraska. The first e-mail-circulated version left off his two opening paragraphs and added a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005 under the title "Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran" and which has since been reproduced on a number of other web sites. Doug Patton published Pamela Foster said this of how her name came to be associated with Doug Patton's article:     The item has subsequently come to be attributed to a variety of unnamed housewives, each of whom supposedly wrote the bit as a letter to the editor of her local paper. A version appeared in March 2007 that attributed the piece to one of them in New Jersey was prefaced "Here is a woman who should run for President!" The text of the original "I'll care if" polemic was shortened a little, and tacked onto the end was the bit about defining forces "which have ever offered to die for you" that also appears in two other Internet-circulated items: A variant of a 2005 piece about complaints made about the noise of a military fly-over in New Mexico and reaction to same, and a version of a pithy quote attributed to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. fly-over Tony Blair In March 2008, the (shortened) item once again circulated, that time attributed to an unnamed ("pissed off") housewife in the Canadian province of New Brunswick, with the forward prefaced with a "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!"and the remainder of the original piece suitably altered to replace American references with Canadian ones. The "defining forces which have ever offered to die for you" enumeration was expanded from the previous twosome of "Jesus Christ and the American G.I." into a list of five: Jesus Christ, the Canadian soldier, the British soldier, the Dutch soldier, and the American soldier. In July 2010 the unnamed housewife was relocated yet again, that time to Britain, and again proclaimed as "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!" Textual changes were once again made in the piece to replace American (or Canadian) references with British ones, and the "who will die for you" list was updated thusly: Jesus Christ, the British soldier, the Canadian soldier, the US soldier, and the Australian soldier. We're betting the unnamed housewife will next show up in Australia. Last updated:  7 August 2013 <!-- Sources:    Voight, Jon.   "An Open Letter to President Obama from Jon Voight."   The Washington Times.  22 June 2010.-->