Obama loans $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company.
Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010
On 1 April 2016, the web site Breitbart published an article reporting that a California man posing as a woman had been arrested after filming women in the bathroom of a Macy's department store: article A Palmdale, California, man wearing womens clothing was arrested in a Lancaster Macys store after he was seen in a womens bathroom. The man was allegedly videotaping women in the bathroom. Jason Pomare, 33, was arrested over the weekend after mall security officers learned he had been hanging out in a Macys department store womens bathroom. The security guards contacted a Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) deputy who found the cross-dressing man in a mall storage area, NBC Los Angeles reported. Breitbart also tied the story to anti-discrimination ordinances regarding bathroom usage by transgender people: It is not clear if Lancaster has a bathroom ordinance like the one defeated in Houston last year where men would legally be allowed to enter womens bathrooms and locker rooms. Breitbart Texas Lana Shadwick covered the defeat of that ordinance in Houston. Pomare was not charged with any offenses related to being in the womens bathroom other than the illegal filming. On 12 April 2016, the web site Daily Headlines published the same story, citing Breitbart as a source, and inaccurately confusing using bathrooms with filming inside them: published A man from Palmdale, California, wearing a bra and dress enters the ladies bathroom at Macys and what happens next should not surprise you. The man, Jason Pomare, 33, entered the bathroom which the ACLU and the liberal elitists in this country say is his God given right. He sets up a hidden camera in one of the stalls and for the next two hours, tapes women using the bathroom. Eventually, one woman noticed the camera with the record light on and notified mall security, who arrested Pomare. There was absolutely no way for anyone to see this coming, was there? (Removes tongue from cheek) Although Breitbart provided a link to the source for their report, the site either didn't bother to check that source's date or deliberately misrepresented the incident in order to leverage more interest in it. The linked news articlefrom Los Angeles television station KNBC was clearly dated 13 May 2013 (not 2016, or "last weekend"): article    KNBC's 2013 reporting described an unambiguous violation of the law. The incident had nothing to do with bathroom ordinances, itinvolved unquestionablyillegal actions, and the individual identifiedwas arrested and charged: bathroom ordinances Charges were filed against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom. Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store. Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of sexual gratification. After his arrest, investigators said a video camera found in his purse had "hours" of video of women using the restroom inside the store. (Pomare's arrest was alsoreported by the Antelope Valley Times in May 2013.) reported  Neither Breitbart nor Daily Headlines updated their articles to note that the incident hadn't taken place in April 2016, and that the arrest occurred well prior to the passage of any prominent bathroom ordinances. And both sitesfailed to take into account that more recent non-discrimination ordinances haven't legalized filming bathroom occupants, no matter what their gender identity might be. non-discrimination ordinances Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for the purposes of sexual gratification, a charge that would alsobe applicable in any jurisdiction that permitted transgender individuals to use bathrooms aligned with their gender. Ordinances of that nature haveno provisions permittingthe surreptitious filming of bathroom occupants for personal sexual gratification (or any other reason), nor have such provisions been sought or suggested by anyone.  Dilworth, M.  "Palmdale Man Arrested for Videotaping in Women's Bathroom."
  The Antelope Valley Times.  14 May 2013. Klemack, John Cadiz and Jonathan Lloyd.   "Man Disguised as Woman Recorded "Hours" of Mall Restroom Video: Investigators."
    KNBC-TV [Los Angeles].   14 May 2013. On 24 December 2015, the following meme was published to the Facebook group "MCM [Movie Comic Media] EXPO GROUP." It held that two police officers from Georgia were responsible for a multitude of crimes, including the deaths of more than 250 civilians:  THIS IS HUGE!!!! Why isn't the mainstream media covering this? These two officers in Georgia have killed over 250 people in the line of duty. The officer on the left, Shane Walsh, has killed 41 people in the line of duty, before being killed in cold blood on a cold fall night by his very own partner and best friend on the right, Rick Grimes, back in late 2011. This was due to a custody dispute and argument over who was the better father and lover to Rick's wife, Lori Grimes, who slept with Deputy Walsh several times and was believed to be pregnant with Deputy Walsh's child as well. If that's not bad enough, Deputy Grimes is still allowed to keep his position as a Georgia full-time deputy sheriff and holds custody over his son Carl and his recently deceased wife Lori and Shane Walsh's child Judith. Rick is an unstable father and has killed over 200 people in the line of duty. It's time to speak up and against people like this. While the post, and its accompanying image, were recognizable to many social media users in the United States as a description of the zombie-themed television and graphic novel seriesThe Walking Dead, its appearance in a European group led to some confusion among users unfamiliar with the show. The post was shared tens of thousands of times, and comments included the following: Demented and evil America. Where murderers in the police and other forces are decorated. And celebrated by US government and politicians. I swear the guy on the right is from love actually x As a matter of fact, Andrew Lincoln, the British actor who plays one ofmain characters in The Walking Dead, did indeed have a role in the movieLove Actually. role While most viewers appeared to have shared the post as a joke,manywere genuinely concerned about the two murderous cops and their increasing body count in a fictional, post-apocalyptic Georgia. A photograph which appears to show representatives playing solitaire on their laptops during a legislative session has certainly struck a chord among many viewers, undoubtedly because it seemingly confirms a widely held view of elected representatives as paid fat cats frittering away their time at frivolous pursuits rather than engaging in serious governmental problem solving efforts.  The photograph is real, although it has erroneously been attributed to a number of different legislative bodies, from the U.S. Congress to a variety of state legislatures: This picture is worth a trillion $$ This was sent to me showing our Congress at work. It was said that this was while Congress was in session, appears to be true, and that it was during the health care debate. Even if it wasnt during the health care debate, if this is how they spend their time while they are supposed to be deciding on important issues, then I not only want a rebate on my tax dollars, I want to see some new people who actually care about what is happening and are paying close attention to the matter at hand sitting in those seats. Seems like we dont need to be sending them on any more expen$ive vacations, theyre already on one. It seems to me that if all we are doing is paying these congressmen and women a gigantic salary to sit in congressional session and play solitaire or whatever, its time to bring most of them back home by replacement. Democrats, republicans, independents  it makes no difference. The bills theyre passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every key stroke Fire 'em all! Folks we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people that are being paid by our tax dollars. Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc. These are the folks that can't get the budget out by Oct. 1, Seriously!!! So, we've got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news 'reporters' as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo's will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!! The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on 31 August 2009 by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn." Jessica Hill Ms. Hill described the reaction to her photograph as follows: I have received a great deal of mail and even a few calls from people all over the country over the last couple of months about the photograph I have as a lead off image on my member page. Some viewers have even gone so far to say they believe the photograph is not authentic. I take my profession very serious. There is nothing staged or altered in the photograph and it is insulting to me to have been accused of otherwise from people who do not even know me. Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents: apology It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game even for just a few minutes during the final House session on the budget. I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state. My actions were inexcusable. I do want my constituents to know that my poor judgment for a few moments in no way means I ignored your interests in representing you on this very serious matter. Over the past seven months, as a member of the General Assembly's Finance Committee, I have participated fully in the budget process and have played an active role in crafting a budget that provides the necessary services that our communities so desperately need while at the same time minimizing any negative impact on the city of Bridgeport and its people. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I look forward to having the continued privilege of representing you and your interests in Hartford. I thank you in advance for your understanding and have been humbled by those of you who have already expressed your understanding and forgiveness. Brown, DeNeen L.  "For a Day, First Lady Becomes a Lunch Lady."
  The Washington Post.  6 March 2009. Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence What We Eat, Too?"
  Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009. Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."
  The Australian.  7 March 2009. Speaking at an event in Chicago earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., was talking tax policy and the economy when he pointed to lackluster economic growth that occurred under former President Barack Obama. The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth, Roskam said during a March 6speechat the City Club of Chicago. Its an oft-cited figure Republicans tend to throw around to highlight the weak economic recovery throughout Obamas presidency, but does the data back it up? A familiar claim Roskams claim lacks some specifics, particularly the type of growth and time frame he was referring to in his speech. David Pasch, the Wheaton Republicans communications director, provided a link to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing both the annual and quarterly percentage change in real gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the total value of goods and services provided in the country. While annual figures on GDP growth date back to the Herbert Hoover administration and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the federal government did not start trackingquarterly growthuntil 1947. Considering the time frame for which this annual data is available, its safe to assume Roskam was referring to economic growth since the Hoover administration. In fact, Roskams claim is quite similar to a statement Donald Trump made during a campaign speech in October, which wasfact-checkedby our colleague Joshua Gillin at PolitiFact Florida. As was the case with Trumps claim, Roskam is right when he says that year-over-year GDP growth never topped 3 percent while Obama was in office. But as Princeton University economist Alan Blinder told PolitiFact at the time, looking at annual data can be misleading because it doesnt provide context or account for historical factors that affect economic growth, such as recessions and global crises. For example, Hoover came into office on the cusp of the Great Depression, and Obama took over during the tail end of the Great Recession and amid instability in the Middle East. Thats one of the main reasons why economists suggest looking at the percentage change in GDP by quarters, rather than growth in a single calendar year. When PolitiFact Florida fact-checked Trump saying Obama was the first president in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth, data for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 was not yet available. But now it is. GDP growth in 2016 and the Obama years According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percentage change in GDP growth during the third and fourth quarters of the last year of Obamas final term was 3.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, resulting in an average growth rate of 1.6 percent for 2016. That was down 1 percentage point from 2015 when GDP grew by 2.6 percent, which marked the best year for average growth under Obama. Typically, economic growth in the first quarter of a new presidency is attributed to the previous administration, meaning former President George W. Bush gets credit for the 5.4 percent contraction in the economy during the first three months of 2009. As for the remainder of Obamas time in office, quarterly GDP growth averaged 2.0 percent, or 1.5 percent when averaging out annual figures. But if the data is used to compare one quarter to the same quarter from a year ago, there were two periods during Obamas tenure in which growth exceeded 3 percent. Between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010, GDP growth was about 3.1 percent; and between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, the economy grew by 3.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With the way Roskam refers to growth, however, Obama indeed was the first president who did not achieve more than 3 percent growth in GDP. Average growth under Bush Sr., was 2.1 percent; 3.9 percent for Bill Clinton; 2.3 percent for George H.W. Bush; and 3.5 percent for Ronald Reagan. The highest annual growth on record occurred in 1942 during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, when GDP grew by a staggering 18.9 percent as the United States entered World War II and ramped up production following the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Our ruling Roskam said the Obama administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth. While Roskams claim is accurate when based on annual GDP growth figures between 2009 and 2016, there are other ways to look at the data, such as from one quarter to the same in the previous year. Doing so reveals economic growth has surpassed 3 percent during two periods of Obamas presidency. We rate Roskams claim Mostly True. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. As the economic collapse began to threaten homeowners, presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to come to their aid.We must help the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure, he said on the campaign trail in June 2008. His plan called for changes in bankruptcy laws, a crackdown on predatory and fraudulent lenders and a $10 billion fund to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.With Obama seeking re-election in 2012, his record on the foreclosure crisis is under attack. The Republican group Crossroads GPS said in a recent television ad that Obama broke his promise to help struggling homeowners.The adshows Obama saying he would help them and then stamps BROKEN on the screen.PolitiFact examined the Crossroads claim and found that, indeed, Obama has had limited success with his plans to ease the mortgage crisis.I don't think there's much doubt, even within the administration, that the (foreclosure assistance) programs overpromised and underperformed -- embarrassingly so, said Ken Harney, who writes a weekly syndicated real estate column. 'They wimped out'During the 2008 campaign and his first few months in office, Obama promised a lot:  $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund to help struggling homeowners Change in bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify mortgage loan terms Tax credits for struggling homeowners A crackdown on predatory and fraudulent lenders Better disclosure about mortgages to home-buyers A moratorium on foreclosuresThe results, experts say, have been mixed at best. Obama himself says the housing crisis is the most stubborn issue he has faced.If we were not a capitalist economy, it would be very easy, said Ken Thomas, an independent bank analyst and economist in Miami. Were a market-regulated economy, were not a government-regulated economy. That makes it very hard for the government to do anything.The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, which Obama signed in 2009, makes it a federal crime to make a materially false statement on a mortgage application or to willfully overvalue a property to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. PolitiFact's Obameter gave that aPromise Kept. And new standards for helping people understand their mortgage were included in the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul passed in 2010,another Promise Kept.But he's had limited success with the promises that would have provided the biggest help to homeowners, according to five experts we interviewed. A temporary foreclosure moratorium happened in early 2009 as banks halted their filings while they waited for the new administration to get its plan in place to address the crisis. Its not clear, though, that it ultimately kept many people out of foreclosure.Analysts say the change in bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify individual loans could have made a significant difference, butit died in Congress.That sort of took the wind out of the program, in a way. If it had passed, it would have put much more fire under the feet of the mortgage servicers, said Alex Schwartz, a professor of urban policy at the New School and author of the bookHousing Policy in the United States. Instead, he said, you were left with voluntary participation of servicers.The foreclosure prevention fund was the heart of his promise. He originally pledged $10 billion but ended up setting aside $75 billion, using TARP funds. He predicted the money would assist 9 million homeowners.But after three years, only about 2 million people have won permanent mortgage help, according to theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development.The two main programs were dubbed HAMP and HARP. Under the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, lenders were encouraged to restructure loans for borrowers who were struggling to pay. The banks received small payments from the government as incentive. The Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, aimed to help people refinance their loans at lower interest rates.Everything has fallen short of original expectations, said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moodys.Other experts agree.Obamas program was overly complicated, it was voluntary, it was at a retail level, requiring people to call in and work with individual servicers. It was a mess, Schwartz said. (On our Obameter, we've rated the foreclosure fund aPromise Brokenbecause it fell far short of Obama's goal of helping 9 million homeowners. )Another shortcoming of the programs: The Obama administration did not require banks to include principal reduction in modifications. The programs allowed loan servicers to reduce loan balances, but it shocked no one when most banks opted not to.Making that a requirement would have gone a long way toward keeping people in their homes.Theres a real risk that when people are so severely underwater, they could walk away from their mortgages, Schwartz said. So you can make a strong case for principal reduction.Harney, the real estate columnist, also blamed the president for not flexing more political muscle with the banks.At a time when the administration could have pushed the big TARP-recipient banks much harder on modifications, short sales and principal reductions, they wimped out, Harney said. Whether the close connections between Wall Street and the new White House/Treasury staff got in the way of stronger designs, I don't know. The numbers speak for themselves.The landscape nowNumbers about the foreclosure crisis show things have improved only slightly.According toRealtyTrac, a website that collects and tracks foreclosure data, about 150,000 new foreclosure suits were filed nationwide in January 2009, the month Obama took office. They peaked at 203,948 in April 2009 and didnt dip below 100,000 in a single month until April 2011. And last month, another 97,000 new foreclosures were filed.Crossroads cites the high rate of underwater mortgages as evidence that Obamas programs failed. In early 2008, the number of underwater homes was estimated at 9 million. RealtyTrac says the current total is 12 million, or 28 percent of all mortgages.But that statistic, sobering as it is, offers a poor gauge of Obamas policies. Borrowers ended up in this situation because they took out high-priced mortgages and then their property values plummeted -- a market occurrence largely outside any presidents control.It mostly reflects bad policy leading up to the crash, said Schwartz. Policies that encouraged reckless mortgage underwriting, which inflated prices.Still, there are some signs of progress.Early this year, changes to HARP relaxed eligibility standards and extended the length of the program to the end of 2013. HAMP also was extended through next year. Schwartz said the programs were originally geared to subprime, high-risk mortgages. So as the recession worsened and people with more conventional mortgages lost jobs and income, the programs didnt accommodate them. The new standards attempt to reach a bigger pool of homeowners, including people deeper underwater and those still in good standing on their loans.The Treasury Department recently announced that the number of active permanent mortgage loan modifications agreed to by banks rose 12,139 to 794,748 during March, the most recent timeframe available. The Obama campaign cited HUD data showing that HAMP has trimmed a median of $535 off monthly payments of mortgages that have been modified as evidence of progress.I still think its meaningful and its helpful, Zandi said. Its just not as helpful as they had hoped for.Its also worth noting that there were forces working against Obama amid these efforts. The Republican-controlled House, for one.The Obama administration has been completely hamstrung by Congress, refusing to spend any money on stimulus, Schwartz said.The economy, for another.They (the foreclosure programs) havent been as effective as hoped and the reason is because a lot of the foreclosures were triggered by the 8 million-plus loss in jobs, said Norm Miller, an economist, financial analyst and professor at the University of San Diego.Our rulingThe Crossroads GPS ad said Obama has broken his promise to help millions of people facing foreclosure. Help is a vague notion, and theres certainly no doubt that the president has tried several avenues to stem the tide of home loan defaults. But theres also no doubt that his efforts have fallen far short of expectations -- and even the benchmarks he set for himself.Two primary programs aimed at helping people keep their homes -- HAMP and HARP -- have reached more households in recent months, but they are unlikely to ever help the 9 million homeowners Obama said he would assist. And its reasonable that he could have leaned harder on lenders to produce better results in the aftermath of multi-billion-dollar bank bailouts.Although Obamas efforts havent been the utter failure Crossroads suggests, there are still millions of struggling homeowners who need help in the ongoing foreclosure crisis. We rate the ads claim Mostly True. Update:This item has been updated to correct that Republicans control the House of Representatives rather than the entire Congress. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson In May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning web site Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on 9 May. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com: lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG  Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019   The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members: Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019  Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019  These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was itself responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees  at times in provocative terms  from becoming IAM members: Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com   In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts and we respect our employees right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: press release "Delta Air Lines all-out assault on their employees legally-protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM-representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding ... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses."
  9 May 2019. Claim:  Food tasters work on behalf of U.S. presidents. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Does President Obama have a food taster?  If so, is that unique to him, or is it standard policy?   Origins:  Food tasters are a concept long associated with important personages such as political leaders and business tycoons.  The most common image of a food taster is someone who serves as a guinea pig for his  employer, sampling meals before they are served to ensure that no one has tampered with them (particularly by introducing poison or some other harmful substance).  Food tasters can serve other functions, however, such as ensuring that foods do not include ingredients that, although ordinarily innocuous, might nonetheless pose a problem for a particular diner, such as wine used in the preparation of a dish intended for someone who is abstaining from alcohol, or an ingredient that a person with specific food allergies might have a sensitivity to.  Or a taster may simply function as someone who is intimately familiar with the preferences of his employer and serves to ensure that food is prepared to the latter's culinary satisfaction. Whether food tasters are employed on behalf of U.S. presidents when they're away from the White House is a subject that the Secret Service refrains from officially commenting on, but it's something of an open secret that they are: The US Secret Service has always refused to confirm that US presidents travel with a food "taster," in line with their policy of discretion on all security related issues. But it is known the Service goes to great lengths to scrutinise the source and the preparation of food served to US presidents whenever they eat out of the White House to ensure it is not tampered with. Nonetheless, a March 2013 report about President Obama's supposedly declining to partake of the main course during a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill because his taster was not present apparently took many readers by surprise: report "Unfortunately, you know, the president can't," said [Maine Senator Susan] Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting. "He looked longingly at it," Collins continued. "He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting." This is a subject the press has covered before, though.  When the Obamas visited France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day in June 2009, for example, the Agence France Presse reported: A US "taster" tested the food being dished up to President Barack Obama at a dinner in a French restaurant, a waiter said. "They have someone who tastes the dishes," said waiter Gabriel de Carvalho from the "La Fontaine de Mars" restaurant where Obama and his family turned up for dinner. "It wasn't very pleasant for the cooks at first, but the person was very nice and was relaxed, so it all went well," he said on the Itele news channel. The Obama Foodorama blog also noted of a September 2012 fundraiser in Tampa that: Obama Foodorama President Obama hailed Food Network star and celebrity chef Tyler Florence's menu as "outstanding" at a $20,000/plate dinner fundraiser held in the backyard of a mansion owned by a billionaire's daughter in the Palma Ceia neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.  Host of the show The Great Food Truck Race, Florence created a complicated six-course menu that included chicken fried quail, crispy fried pork belly, and a squash and quail egg ravioli.  The chef and his team  including wife Tolan Florence and pastry chef Matt Masera  tweeted comments, the menu and photos from behind the scenes, revealing that the President was accompanied at the event by a special food taster, identified as a White House chef. Mentions of presidential food tasters have also turned up in the media during earlier administrations, such as a New York Times account of President George W. Bush's inaugural lunch in January 2001: The president's tasters were on the job by 6 a.m., not just to make certain no one was trying to poison him, but to make sure the mushrooms that were to decorate the tenderloin of beef at the inaugural lunch for teetotaler George W. Bush were not cooked in wine. The tasters, Navy mess specialists who travel around the world with the president, watched the preparations in a makeshift kitchen just off Statuary Hall in the Capitol. [Correction: Although the president does not drink alcohol, his diet does not exclude foods prepared with it. A food taster who made sure on Jan. 20 that mushrooms for the meal were not cooked in wine had been told mistakenly that the president avoided alcohol in all foods.] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on restaurant screening efforts by a food taster when President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major visited that city in February 1994: As their staffs scrambled to assemble a five-hour whiz through Pittsburgh, President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major sent their appetites ahead of them. Planning went on with a team of advance schedulers and security experts fanning out to sites around the region for possible places for Major and Clinton to tour. The search for the right restaurant took special talents  a security man was sent to check out the food at area restaurants. "The guy appeared to be a professional food taster because he weighed about 400 pounds," said Tom Pastorius, owner of the Allegheny Brewery and Pub on the North Side, where a government agent walked in and announced he'd been ordered to check out the food for some very important potential diners. Food tasters were also mentioned in a New York Daily News article on White House perks published during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1992: Among the fringe benefits available to senior White House aides are budget-priced meals in the exclusive, Navy-run White House mess, and use of White House tennis courts and the presidential box at the Kennedy Center. A select few on the senior staff can pump iron in the Secret Service gym. The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries and White House staff receive a wide range of perks. President Bush gets the most, of course: rent-free housing in the Executive Mansion, free travel on luxurious helicopters, airplanes and armored limousines, a free weekend hideaway at Camp David, Md., and free medical care. He also has a tennis court, workout room, horseshoe pit, swimming pool, theater, bowling alley, extraordinarily well-kept gardens and a staff of more than 90 maids, butlers, carpenters, florists, electricians and cooks  and a food taster. Joe Murray also touched on the subject in a 1988 article for the Cox News Service: Everybody probably knew it but me, that Ronald Reagan has a food taster. How I found out was by reading all the way through the news story about the President suffering nausea, vomiting and related stomach problems. This was the night before his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, which, I suppose, is neither here nor there. Hardly anything I read surprises me much anymore. But the last paragraph was the exception: "As a security measure, Reagan's food is routinely tasted by an aide. (White House spokesman) Fitzwater said he did not know if the tester had also become ill." Last updated:  17 March 2013    Murray, Joe.  "Let's Consider This Presidential Food Taster Thing."   The [Daytona Beach] News-Journal.  26 January 1988  (p. A4).    Roddy, Dennis B.  "Food Taster Precedes Clinton and Major."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  26 February 1994  (p. A1).    Agence France Presse.  "President Obama's French Food Tested by 'Taster.'"   7 June 2009.    [New York] Daily News.  "Congress, Losing Perks, Takes Long Look at Others'."   31 March 1992. A tax on feminine hygiene products (also known as a "tampon tax")was notnew by the time social media interest in the topic appeared inMay 2016, but ascreenshot published by the page "Women's Rights News" contributed the buzz: screenshot    The image originated with a 15 January 2016 interview between YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen and President Barack Obama. The "I don't know anyone who has a period who thinks it's a luxury" comment was made by Nilsen, not the President: interview   The topic was already steadily popular.NYMag.compublished an article on 29 April 2016thatexplored social media interest in the tampon tax: article Pads and tampons have made political headlines in every single month of this year. In January, lawmakers in California, Utah, Virginia, and Michigan introduced anti-tampon-tax bills. They were mostly sponsored by women (shout out to Delegate Mark Keam in Virginia, though!). Notably, in each of those states, except California, the mostly Democratic sponsors are vastly outnumbered in their Republican-heavy legislatures. Also in January, the tampon tax made headlines when Obama learned about it while the camera was rolling, and declared he thought the tax was unfair. Then, in February, similar bills were introduced in Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. In March, the city of Chicago dropped its tampon tax, and a class-action lawsuit brought by women in Ohio and New York state added pressure to stop taxing periods. In April, the New York Senate unanimously passed the tampon tax bill. This is an astounding amount of national legislative momentum for an issue that was long considered to be womens private, shameful burden. Its no coincidence that efforts to end the tampon tax have cropped up alongside viral art projects, new businesses, and digital campaigns to destigmatize menstruation. The tampon tax is the perfect of-the-moment issue for lawmakers who want to signal their support for women  and take a stance on inequality. Ending the tax, which promises practical benefits for low-income women, is low-hanging fruit for legislators in liberal states. A widely circulated June 2015 map created byFusion illustrated the tampon tax with color coding. Most statestaxed feminine hygiene products, excepta few that had either specific exemptions orno sales tax at all: map   Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland specifically did not tax[PDF] feminine hygiene products. Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, and Delaware do not have sales tax on any items (including tampons). The rest ofthe states maintained atax on such products.One outlier was the state of New York, which moved in April 2016 to abolish the tax: tax moved The Republican-led Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill exempting feminine hygiene products from sales tax, two months after the debate over the so-called tampon tax reached Albany. The bill, sponsored by freshman Sen. Sue Serino, a Republican from Hyde Park, passed with 58 votes. The vote on the Senate floor took about one minute, just enough time for at least one period joke. It is a way of providing some tax relief to women everywhere, young girls in particular, Sen. Diane Savino said, thanking the bill sponsor. But on behalf of women of a certain age everywhere, I would love to offer a friendly amendment and ask for a rebate program, Senator Serino. But I know it would probably bankrupt the state.   Lawmakers in Michigan expressed interest in advancing a similar initiative, and the city of Chicago (but not the state of Illinois) axed the tax. On 12 April 2016, MarketWatch reported somemomentum both in and outside the U.S. to end the additional charges: Michigan Chicago reported The issue has made it onto the agenda in about 10 states, seven of which introduced the legislation, including New York (though Utahs never made it out of committee) and three, South Carolina, Tennessee and Illinois, that recently debated it. It has also gone international, with France cutting the sales tax in late 2015 and the European Union taking a stance on the issue this year. In May 2016, the majority of the 40 states with a tampon tax retained it (although New York was on its way to tax-free status for feminine hygiene products). By and large, social media tampon tax claims were accurate. To be clear, tampons weren't taxed at a special or higher rate than other taxable items  they simply were subject to sales tax in general.  Coughlin, Sarah.  "Chicago Removes Its Tampon Tax & The State Of New York Is On Its Way To Doing The Same."
Refinery29.  13 April 2016. Court, Emma.  "New York Is The Latest State To Scrap Tampon Tax."
MarketWatch.  12 April 2016. Friedman, Ann.  "How Ending The Tampon Tax Became Viral Legislation."
NYMag The Cut.  29 April 2016. Hillin, Taryn.  "These Are The U.S. States That Tax Women For Having Periods."
Fusion.  3 June 2015. Larimer, Sarah.  "The 'Tampon tax,' Explained."
Washington Post.  8 January 2016. Miller, Faith.  "Why Two Senators Want To Get Rid Of Michigan's 'Tampon Tax.'"
WILX.  14 April 2016. Velasquez, Josefa.  "Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Eliminating 'Tampon Tax.'"
Politico New York.  11 April 2016.