Is this a Photograph of a Large Storm Over Sydney?
An image supposedly capturing a large storm looming over Sydney, Australia, racked up thousands of views as it was passed around on Facebook in March 2019: Facebook   This is not a genuine photograph of a storm over Sydney, but rather a composite of at least two different images. The photograph of the Sydney cityscape was taken by photographer Rudy Blasko and shared to his Instagram page in April 2017. The original image depicted Sydney's Lavender Bay at sunset, not during a major storm: Rudy Blasko     Sunset in the city. Sydney Lavender Bay . . . . . . . . . #sydney #australia #ig_shotz #ig_masterpiece #instagram #neverstopexploring #natgeotravel #natgeotravelpic #agameoftones #sunset #photoprints #main_vision #lavenderbay #canonusa #canon_photos #canonaustralia #worldtravel #worldcaptures #wow_australia #australiagram #australia_oz #moodygrams #earthpix #earth_shotz #earthofficial #longexpoelite #longexposure #longexposure_shots #shoot2kill #harbourbridge Sunset in the city. Sydney Lavender Bay . . . . . . . . . #sydney #australia #ig_shotz #ig_masterpiece #instagram #neverstopexploring #natgeotravel #natgeotravelpic #agameoftones #sunset #photoprints #main_vision #lavenderbay #canonusa #canon_photos #canonaustralia #worldtravel #worldcaptures #wow_australia #australiagram #australia_oz #moodygrams #earthpix #earth_shotz #earthofficial #longexpoelite #longexposure #longexposure_shots #shoot2kill #harbourbridge A post shared by  Rudi Balasko (@rudib1976) on Apr 13, 2017 at 9:46am PDT  Rudi Balasko  The storm clouds in this viral picture appear to be a distorted version of a photograph available via Adobe Stock, which supposedly shows a supercell that formed in Colorado in 2013. The original cloud photograph was flipped and stretched before it was inserted into the viral image. Adobe Stock Colorado We're not entirely certain that the original photograph captured a genuine storm (the image is available on various stock photo websites with varying information), but supercell clouds are certainly real. Here's how NASA described these alien-looking cloud formations when describing a similar photograph taken in Montana in 2010: stock photo NASA Is that a spaceship or a cloud? Although it may seem like an alien mothership, it's actually a impressive thunderstorm cloud called a supercell. Such colossal storm systems center on mesocyclones -- rotating updrafts that can span several kilometers and deliver torrential rain and high winds including tornadoes. Jagged sculptured clouds adorn the supercell's edge, while wind swept dust and rain dominate the center. The following collage shows the two original images (left) and the doctored photograph (right). We rotated and stretched the cloud image to better match the edited "Stormy Over Sydney" photograph:   NASA.  "A Supercell Thunderstorm Cloud Over Montana."
  26 February 2017.
In June and July 2020, ahead of the presidential elections, Democratic candidate Joe Bidens various policy platforms were picked apart and in some cases misrepresented by critics, including U.S. President Donald Trump. One particular statement Biden made about health care for so-called "undocumented" immigrants was misreported and presented without context as his policy. picked apart Snopes readers asked us if Biden had ever said that U.S. taxpayers had an obligation to pay for the health care of 11 million "illegal immigrants." We found that Biden was misquoted, and his actual platform said something very different.   The quote appeared to originate from a clip shared by right-wing media organization BlazeTV, in May 2019. The video carried the title, "Joe Biden Says U.S. Obligated to Give Free Healthcare to 'Undocumented' Immigrants."  In the clip, a reporter asked Biden, Do you think the undocumented immigrants[that] are law abiding, should be entitled to federal benefits, Medicare, Medicaid for example? Biden responded: "Look I think that anyone who is in a situation where theyre in need of healthcare, regardless of whether theyre documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that theyre cared for. Thats why I think we need more clinics around the country." Biden echoed this in the June 2019 Democratic presidential debates. And in a December 2019 interview with Telemundo, he laid out the caveats in his plan: "They can buy into the system like everyone else" under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  June 2019 December 2019 On July 14, 2020, in a rambling speech, Trump misrepresented Biden's policy after it was presented by the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces. Trump said: They want government health care for all illegal aliens. speech misrepresented presented But here's what the task force actually recommended: task force "To ensure that people living and working across the country have health care access, the Task Force recommends extending Affordable Care Act coverage to DACA recipients, allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase unsubsidized coverage in the ACA marketplaces ..." Under this proposal, taxpayers would not be paying for undocumented immigrants health care, rather undocumented immigrants could have the option to pay out-of-pocket for health coverage through the ACA exchange marketplace, but without access to the government subsidies that are available to others. In 2019 Brookings estimated that there are 10.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Currently, they cannot enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace. Some state-funded or locally-funded health programs provide coverage regardless of immigration status. Emergency health services and safety-net clinics are already available to undocumented immigrants, which Biden had advocated for before.  Brookings estimated cannot state-funded available before In summary, even though Biden did state that the U.S. had an obligation to ensure immigrants received health care, his views were largely misrepresented and did not reflect his current policy. While he would extend health care access to undocumented immigrants through the marketplace, it was far from the government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded plan it was made out to be by Trump. We thus rate this claim as false. Dale, Daniel.  "Fact check: Trump Deceives About Sanders-Biden Task Force Proposals to Make Biden Sound 'Extreme.'"
 CNN. 15 July 2020. JoeBiden.com. "Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations."
 July 2020. Japsen, Bruce.  "Bidens Healthcare Idea For Undocumented Immigrants Already Exists."
 Forbes. 6 July 2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
 18 March 2020. Kamarck, Elaine and Christine Stenglein. "How Many Undocumented Immigrants are in the United States and Who are They?"
  Brookings Institute. 12 November 2019. Kelley, Alan and Renuka Tipirneni. "An Ironic Health Care Twist for Undocumented Immigrants."
 Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan. 2 May 2018. Whitehouse.gov. "Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference."
 14 July 2020. In June 2022, many people expressed outrage over the claim that Disney had supposedly "canceled" actor Tim Allen, who voiced the character "Buzz Lightyear" in the original "Toy Story" movies. According to the rumor, the entertainment giant refused to cast Allen in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie due to his conservative political views.  Disney Here's how the conservative news outlet "Townhall" framed the issue: "Townhall" framed the issue  While it was true that actor Chris Evans  not Allen  was voicing Buzz in "Lightyear," Disney had not cut ties with Allen. In fact, Allen and Disney are currently working together on another project, as of this writing. Furthermore, there were several story reasons (not political ones) for a new actor to voice "Buzz Lightyear" in the 2022 movie. Chief among them: "Lightyear" focused on a fictional human character, while the "Toy Story" movies featured a fictional "Buzz Lightyear" toy. Allen In 1995, Allen debuted as the voice behind "Buzz Lightyear," an action-figure toy that came to life when humans left the room, in the Pixar movie "Toy Story." In the Pixar universe, this action-figure toy was based on a character from an action movie. Pixar's 2022 film "Lightyear" is that in-universe action movie. Sound a little confusing? In the opening moments of "Lightyear," the premise of the movie is explained like this: "In 1995, Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie." premise of the movie is explained like this In other words, the movie "Lightyear" did not feature the fictional toy that Allen voiced in the original "Toy Story" movies. Evans was voicing a new iteration of the "Buzz Lightyear" character. "Lightyear" producer Galyn Susman explained: explained 'Tim Allen is Buzz Lightyear the toy, and hes the embodiment of Buzz Lightyear the toy. We werent making a Toy Story movie. Were making Buzz Lightyears movie, the Lightyear movie. And so first and foremost, we just needed to have a different person playing that Lightyear, separate from the toy.' In the real world, we can compare this scenario to Batman action figures and Batman movie stars. Actor Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," but that doesn't mean he provided the voice for the latest "Batman" toys on store shelves. In fact, while Allen's co-star Tom Hanks voiced the character of "Woody" in the "Toy Story" movies, it was actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures.  Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures  Allen provided the voice for some "Buzz Lightyear" toys, but so have a number of other entertainers  such as actor Pat Fraley. Allen provided the voice Fraley said in a 2019 interview: said in a 2019 interview So, for nine years it was one of the most lucrative roles I ever did. I did all the toys and there were a lot of them. Thats how that went down the pike. Eventually, they got rid of me and I figured they found someone better than me. I was a close match but not perfect. No, my replacement wasnt better than me but I bet he was cheaper. So, why didnt Tim Allen do the voice of Buzz Lightyear for all of those toys instead? Tim was too busy. He had a show on TV and was doing movies. He had Home Improvement and those Santa Clause movies at the time. Home Improvement Santa Clause We reached out to Disney to see if Allen was voicing new "Buzz Lightyear" toys, and we will update this article accordingly.  As this rumor circulated on social media, many people claimed that Allen was the victim of "cancel culture" and that Disney was refusing to work with the actor due to his conservative politics. But that wasn't the case. In fact, as of this writing, Allen and Disney were working together on an upcoming television series based on "The Santa Clause" movies.  conservative politics working together  Here's a synopsis of the new Disney+ series: synopsis of the new Disney+ series In the Disney+ series, Scott Calvin is on the brink of his 65th birthday and realizing that he cant be Santa forever. Hes starting to lose a step in his Santa duties, and more importantly, hes got a family who could benefit from a life in the normal world, especially his two kids who have grown up at the Pole. With a lot of elves, children, and family to please, Scott sets out to find a suitable replacement Santa while preparing his family for a new adventure in a life south of the pole. While Allen did not voice Buzz Lightyear in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie, there was no evidence that Disney refused him the role, or ended its working relationship with Allen, because of his political beliefs. Rather, the film featured a version of the fictional character that was different from the original "Buzz Lightyear" figure in the "Toy Story" films, and a producer said they "needed to have a different person" playing the 2022 movie's version. Also, Allen was working with Disney on a separate project. Buzz Lightyear Voices (Toy Story). Behind The Voice Actors, https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/characters/Toy-Story/Buzz-Lightyear/. Accessed 16 June 2022. Weary Lightyear Director Tries Once Again to Explain How Real Lightyear Is or Isnt. The A.V. Club, 16 June 2022, https://www.avclub.com/lightyear-director-angus-maclane-describes-how-real-the-1849068927. Cavacini, Michael. Legendary Pat Fraley Tells All. Michael Cavacini, 1 Nov. 2019, https://michaelcavacini.com/2019/11/01/legendary-pat-fraley-tells-all/. Johnson, Allen. Why Lightyear Director Recast Iconic Role of Buzz with Chris Evans for New Pixar Film. Datebook SF Chronicle, https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/why-lightyear-director-recast-iconic-role-of-buzz-with-chris-evans-for-new-pixar-film. Accessed 16 June 2022. Lightyear Creator Breaks Down Why Tim Allen Wasnt Asked To Return In New Pixar Movie - The Illuminerdi. 15 June 2022, https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2022/06/15/lightyear-why-tim-allen-recast/. Scott, A. O. Lightyear Review: Infinite Buzz. The New York Times, 14 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/movies/lightyear-review.html. Tim Allen Returns to the Red Suit for The Santa Clause, a Limited Series for Disney+. D23, 14 Jan. 2022, https://d23.com/just-announced-tim-allen-returns-to-the-red-suit-for-the-santa-clause-a-limited-series-for-disney/. 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 A massive federal spending bill passed by United States Congress on Dec. 21, 2020, was almost 5,600 pages long, so there was plenty for everyone to debate. But social media was full of misleading outrage takes, framing the legislation as a COVID-19 stimulus package that doled out foreign aid unrelated to the pandemic. In fact, what Congress passed was a $2.3 trillion spending bill that funds the U.S. government through the 2021 fiscal year. The bill includes a $900 billion coronavirus relief package  not the other way around. But many framed the story in reverse, claiming that Congress had passed a coronavirus relief package and opportunistically included foreign aid and other unrelated items. For example, conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk tweeted, "what does 10M dollars going to Pakistan for gender programs have to do with [coronavirus] relief for Americans?" Many other social media users posted the following meme: tweeted   Claims that Congress jammed foreign aid and museum funding into coronavirus economic relief are misleading. It's more accurate to say Congress passed a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill funding the entirety of the U.S. government, including foreign aid programs, national museum funding, and also a coronavirus relief package. funding For example, the $10 million in aid to Pakistan for "gender programs" is slated under U.S. State Department funding in the omnibus bill, along with a number of other foreign aid programs,  The way the meme above presents the $600 stimulus payments is also misleading because it juxtaposes the sum total of aid for various countries and institutions included in the spending bill, alongside individual payments to Americans included in the coronavirus relief package. The coronavirus relief package includes $600 stimulus checks, which will be paid out to most Americans, but the total cost of these checks and other aid to Americans adds up to $900 billion. It's also misleading to state that the only benefit included in the bill for Americans is a check for $600. Although the amounts of financial assistance were less than what was provided in first stimulus package in March 2020, the coronavirus relief package includes expansion of unemployment benefits, another round of small business loans, as well as rent, utilities, and food assistance along with $600 stimulus checks. includes Legislators complained they didn't have time to properly review the massive document before voting on it. Some legislators said the price tag for the legislative package was too big, while others said relief provided to Americans struggling with economic fallout from the pandemic didn't go far enough. complained On the evening of Dec. 22, 2020, the day after Congress passed the spending package, U.S. President Donald Trump made a statement echoing these internet claims, raising doubts that he would sign the legislation after the White House had already indicated he would. Among other statements, Trump said he wanted stimulus checks to be $2,000 instead of $600, which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with. statement agreed The bill comes nine months after the CARES Act stimulus package was signed in March 2020, as well as months of partisan haggling between Republicans, who wanted a more limited package, and Democrats, who had pushed for a bigger bill. It also comes amid a surge of reported COVID-19 cases amid the holiday season. More than 322,000 Americans have died from the pandemic as of this writing. nine months died Claim:  Transcript records President Bush's remarks to reporters at a New Mexico restaurant.  Status:  True. Example:  [whitehouse.gov, 2004] Remarks by the President to the Press PoolNothin' Fancy CafeRoswell, New Mexico  11:25 A.M. MST  THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.  Q Mr. President, how are you?  THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.  Q What would you like?  THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.  Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.  THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch  what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?  Q Right behind you, whatever you order.  THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?  Q But Mr. President  THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?  Q Yes.  THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?  Q Ribs.  THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.  Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?  THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?  Q An answer.  Q Can we buy some questions?  THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people  they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.  Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?  THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.  END 11:29 A.M. MST Origins:  This transcript, archived at the White House web site, certainly reads as one of the more unusual Presidential press conferences in recent memory.  But much of the oddness stems from the fact that the transcript provides no context for the remarks contained therein; a little background helps to make it more understandable. White House After delivering his State of the Union address on 20 January 2004, President Bush undertook a two-day, three-state swing through Ohio, Arizona, and New Mexico.  The morning of 22 January found the President in Roswell, New Mexico, where he delivered a 40-plus minute speech at the town's Convention and Civic Center in front of 1,800 cadets from the New Mexico Military Institute, law enforcement officers studying at the International Law Enforcement Academy's graduate center and the Federal Law Enforcement Training center, and local  residents.   The President wrapped up his speech a bit before 11:30 AM, and he then surprised many Roswell residents by sending his motorcade to the Nuthin' Special Cafe on Main Street  described as "a local eatery known more for its 50-cent beer than its food"  for lunch.  After entering the restaurant and shaking some hands, the President decided to give the local economy a boost by strolling behind the counter and cajoling members of the traveling press into ordering some food.   A couple of White House correspondents, David Gregory of NBC (referred to in the transcript as "Stretch") and Terry Moran of ABC, tried to turn the occasion into an impromptu press conference, but President Bush held firm, stating in no uncertain terms that he was there to take food orders, not to answer questions from the press.   According to cafe owner Armando Aceves, the President ordered pork ribs and buttermilk pie and autographed a menu. However, Jim Lakely of the Washington Times, a designated pool reporter for the Roswell trip, noted that the President was unsuccessful in convincing the reporters in question to purchase any ribs themselves.  Once President Bush and his entourage were back on-board Air Force One with their take-out orders, someone from the White House staff sent some ribs back to the press corps. There wasn't enough to go around, though. A letter writer to the Albuquerque Journal later noted that President Bush did not leave a tip when he departed.  But, as that newspaper reported, the Nuthin' Fancy Cafe staff still ended up with a larger payment than they were expecting: "But you don't expect a tip from take-out," said Beverly Patterson, one of the servers who helped with the president's order of ribs, corn bread, butter and honey. "And how many other people can say they had the pleasure and honor of having the president visit their place?" adds Patterson, who has worked at the cafe for three years.  Bush paid for the order with $30 in cash. Patterson says the president called later from Air Force One and said, "You didn't charge me enough, and I'm going to send more money." But Edward Zavala, Nuthin' Fancy's manager, says he told the president they didn't want any more money. "We were willing to give him the meal free, but the president wanted to pay," Zavala adds. "We didn't care for the money. This was a once-in-a-lifetime deal." Last updated:  19 August 2007    Sources:   Coleman, Michael.  "From These Ribs . . ."   Albuquerque Journal.  24 January 2004  (p. A8).    Hoffman, Leslie.  "Bush Touts Policies, Focuses on War on Terrorism During Roswell Visit."   The Associated Press.  22 January 2004.    Moskos, Harry.  "Mr. Bush Paid Bill in Cash."   Albuquerque Journal..  8 February 2004  (p. C1). This piece about an upcoming "gay Jesus film" is one of those examples that demonstrates a good petition never goes away, even when the issue it addresses has long since been settled (or was never really an issue in the first place).  The "gay Jesus film" petition first hit the fan in 1984, and by the end of 1985 more than a million Christians had written protest letters in an attempt to have the non-existent movie it referenced banned. Yes, non-existent. There never was such a film in production, but petitions likes these were circulated anyway: Modern People News has revealed plans for the filming of a movie based  on the SEX LIFE OF JESUS in which Jesus is portrayed as a swinging HOMOSEXUAL. This film will be shot in the U.S.A. this year unless the public outcry is great. Already a French Prostitute has been named to play the part of Mary Magdalene, with who Christ has a blatant affair. We CANNOT AFFORD to standby and DO NOTHING about this disgrace. We must not allow this perveted world to drag our Lord through the dirt. PLEASE HELP us to get this film banned from the U.S.A. as it has been in Europe.  Let us show how we feel. Detach and mail the form below to the address shown. Make a few copies and give them to your friends.  Only one name per copy. -------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Scott,301 South Second Street,SpringfieldILLINOIS  62606 Dear Attorney General Scott, I would like to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the production, filming, and showing of any movie that supposedly depicts the sex life of JESUS CHRIST by MODERN PEOPLE NEWS, 11030 West Addison Street, Franklin Park, Illinois 60181. Such a movie would be blasphemous and would be an outrage and contrary to the truth.  We urge you to take proper action against this moral corruption. NAME:...................................................ADDRESS:.............................................CITY:.....................................................STATE:..............................CODE:.......... In the early incarnations of this call to arms, people were asked to fill out an attached form letter of protest and mail it to the Attorney General of Alabama.  The message often contained the following postscript: Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart recently reported that the above mentioned movie HAS BEEN COMPLETED!!! According to Brother Swaggart, the movie company has released word that the movie is scheduled to be shown in various locations around the country during the Christmas Season. So, the time is short to put a stop to it. We sincerely hope that all spiritually and morally minded people will band together and keep this UNGODLY type of filth out of Alabama. Many readers fell for it, including a radio station that happily passed the story along to their listeners and later had to retract it, according to folklorist Jan Brunvand: By later the same day the radio station [in Gadsen, Alabama] personnel had attempted to contact Modern People News and had been in touch with the Alabama Attorney General's office. Following these efforts at verification, a statement was read on the air saying that although the attorney general had received between two and three thousand letters over a period of several weeks concerning the supposed gay-Jesus movie, no evidence could be found that such a project ever existed. Modern People News, it was stated, seemed to have either gone out of business or changed their name. In January 1985 Ann Landers published a letter from the Attorney General's office of Illinois which tried to set the record straight. By then it was Modern Film News (not Modern People News) who supposedly had offices in Illinois, which is how that state got dragged into this issue).  People were exhorted to write to Attorney General William J. Scott . . . a man who had last held that office four years earlier: Dear Ann Landers:  The office of the Attorney General of the State of Illnois respectfully requests your assistance in combating an international chain letter that is distressing hundreds and thousands of Christians and those of other faiths as well. The chain letter is a plea to protest "in the strongest possible language" the making of a movie in which Jesus Christ could be depicted as a swinging homosexual. Both this office and the Associated Press have chased down every possible clue and cannot find a shred of truth in the story that such a film was ever in production. Modern Film News, which reported the film plans, has been out of business for more than two years. Moreover, 90 percent of the protest mail that has been overwhelming our staff is addressed to the former attorney general, William J. Scott, who has been out of office longer than four years. Despite our efforts to get the word to the public that the chain letter is a hoax, we continue to receive approximately 1,000 protests every week and at least a dozen phone inquiries each working day. The inquiries and protests have come from 41 states, Canada, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Spain, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, the Philippines, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Portugal. We have concluded that the "Jesus movie" rumor originated in 1977 when a suburban Chicago publication, Modern People News, reported that certain interests in Europe were planning such a film and requested that readers express their opinion of the purported project. The result was the chain-letter protest, which, for some unknown reason, has been revived and is again sweeping the world. We are appealing to you, Ann Landers, to help us get the word out. The scope of your readership and impact on millions of newspaper readers around the world cannot be overestimated. The postage and phone calls, not to mention the valuable time of employees, run into a great deal of money that could be used for so many worthwhile purposes. Will you please help us?   Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illnois Dear Attorney General Hartigan: Hoaxes die hard and the zanier the hoax, the more difficult it is to convince people that it is not true.  If any of you, my readers, receive a copy of that wacky chain letter, take my word for the fact that there is not an iota of truth in it. And please tell friends that chain letters are illegal and should be tossed into the handiest wastebasket or fed to the nearest goat. The only such movie that seems to have been planned or made when this petition originally began circulating decades ago was the 1974 film Him, described briefly in Harry and Michael Medved's 1980 book, The Golden Turkey Awards, as an "everything you ever wanted to know about bad movies, but were afraid to ask" offering: This innovative film, designed exclusively for gay audiences, goes into excruciating detail concerning the erotic career of Jesus Christ. The ads for the film show the face of The Savior (with a cross glistening in one eye) while the headline inquires 'Are You Curious About HIS Sexual Life?'  Filmmaker Ed D. Louie satisfies that curiosity by showing us that the Son of Man was a voracious homosexual. (After all, why did he spend all that time hanging around with the Apostles?) The central character of the film is actually a young gay male in contemporary America whose sexual obsession with Jesus helps him to understand the "hidden meaning" of the Gospels. Contrary to common belief, the entry for Him in the Medveds' book was not a hoax concocted by them.  However, the minor, low-budget film was so obscure even after its release that it's hard to imagine it could have triggered a massive outpouring of petitions to halt its production. obscure  The non-existence of a "gay Jesus film" did not stem the ire of those who heard about it. Blasphemy  even the mere hint of it  is enough to mobilize good Christian soldiers everywhere. In 1988, Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ reaped massive publicity  and long lines at the box office  after fundamentalist Christians picketed theaters. The uproar wasn't over a gay Jesus, merely one who both questioned his fate and who had a dream about a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. The film remains controversial to this day. We take our religious icons seriously, as Denis Lemon, editor of the British publication Gay News, found out in 1978. He lost his appeal against conviction for blasphemous libel involving poem he had published about a Roman centurion's homosexual love for Jesus. Though the nine month suspended sentence was set aside, the $900 fine against him and $1,900 fine against his magazine were upheld. A non-film version of a work similar to the one described in the petition was produced in 1998, when Terrance McNally's dramatic offering Corpus Christi began previews at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York. As described by the New York Times, the production "retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure  from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel with people having profane, violent sex in a room next door, to his crucifixion as 'king of the queers' in a manner with the potential to offend many people."  Corpus Christi And it did. The Manhattan Theater Club's announcement of the play as part of its fall season was greeted with bomb threats promising to "burn the place to the ground" if the production opened. In May 1998 the theatre announced it was pulling "Corpus Christi" from its line-up. A week later it changed its mind, reinstating the play to its fall roster. Caught between cries of censorship on one side and outraged sensibilities on the other, the theatre had to make a choice.  Additional security measures were taken during the play's run to protect both the actors and the audience. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (self-described as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group) planned an opening-night protest at the theatre involving busloads of people from as far away as Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as nuns, priests and lay people from Long Island. "Hopefully we'll send a message that this is basically unacceptable," said William A. Donohue, the league's president.  Corpus Christi continues to play various live theatres from time to time. It completed a four-week engagement at London's Pleasance Theatre in late 1999, and in March 2001 it became the subject of a brouhaha at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton when several state lawmakers threatened to cut funding for FAU because their theatre department staged the play.  In March 2010, Tarleton State University's decision to host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi drew ire from some residents of Stephenville, Texas, home of that institute of higher learning.  Corpus Christi is undoubtedly the "play that went on for a while but never stopped" referred to in the current petition, but there are still no plans to make a movie out of it.  The 2010 release Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is often mistakenly cited as a film version of the play Corpus Christi, but it is not; it's a documentary about the controversy surrounding one particular troupe's production of the play,  not a movie version of the play itself.   Likewise, the 2006 DVD release entitled Corpus Christi is simply a documentary about the historical figure of Jesus, not a film version of the similarly titled play. documentary Corpus Christi Abrams, Joseph.  "Texas Town Cross Over Play's 'Gay' Christ."
  FOXNews.com.  25 March 2010. Applebomb, Peter.  "In Reversal, Theater Vows to Stage Play That Drew Threats."
  The New York Times.  29 May 1998  (p. A1). Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 175-177). Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."
  20 January 1985  [syndicated column]. Leo, John.  "Bigotry Still Has No Place in World of Art."
  The Detroit News.  9 June 1998  (p. A7). Medved, Harry and Michael Medved.  The Golden Turkey Awards.
  New York: Perigee Books, 1980.  (pp. 122-124). O'Haire, Patricia.  "Curtains for Play Depicting Christ As Gay."
  [New York] Daily News.  22 May 1998  (p. 7). Reel, Bill.  "Artistic Freedom Is Not a License to Commit or Aid Artistic Assault."
  Newsday.  2 June 1998  (p. A40). Associated Press.  "Florida University Under Fire for Play with Gay Christ Character."
  30 March 2001.  The New York Times.  "Lemon Loses Appeal."
  18 March 1978  (p. 7). renovated Claim:  Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards beat a heroin addiction by having his blood replaced at a Swiss medical clinic.   Status:  False. Origins:  As the clich goes, look up 'debauchery' in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of Keith Richards.  Although many tales about the   depravity of the Rolling Stones were deliberately concocted for publicity purposes (especially in the group's early days), the extent of Keith Richards' drug abuse over the last several decades would be hard to exaggerate: long periods of drug use and addiction, punctuated with occasional efforts at beating the drug habit.  These efforts ranged from going cold turkey to submitting to conventional medical means of ending addiction to undergoing controversial "experimental" cures.  Whatever the method, the results were generally the same: Richards would quit before the end of the program or lapse back into his familiar habits soon afterwards.  Although drugs have long been considered an indispensable part of the "rock 'n' roll lifestyle," too much of a good thing can be detrimental, even to rock musicians.  The Rolling Stones have been a top concert draw for thirty-five years and owe much of their popularity (not to mention their income) to their live shows.  But the Rolling Stones are not the Rolling Stones without a functioning Keith Richards, and at times his overindulgences have put concert tours in jeopardy due to his inability to weather rigorous and demanding tour schedules.  Such was the situation during the Stones' 1973 European tour, when Richards needed to kick a heroin addiction quickly and underwent a treatment in Switzerland that lead to rumors he had undergone the human equivalent of an automotive oil change and beat his drug habit by having all his blood replaced.  As Stones intimate Spanish Tony Sanchez later described the process in his tell-all book about the band: In the midst of this chaos it was time for the Stones to finalize plans for their seven-week tour of Britain and Europe. Keith knew that he was in no condition to go on the road, but there was no time for a cure. Withdrawing would have meant being laid up for weeks  and that was out of the question. Marshall Chess, however, had a solution. "There's a doctor from Florida who can get you off dope in a few days by changing your blood," he told Keith. "He did it for me in Mexico a while back, and it worked perfectly." The Florida doctor would carry out the blood change for Keith in a villa called Le Pec Varp, in Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland. Keith would fly directly to Switzerland after the Stones' concert in Birmingham on September 19. He would then be cured in time to play with the Stones again in Berne, Switzerland, on September 26. Marshall was going to Switzerland with Keith to have his blood changed at the same time. Sanchez went on to describe exactly how much Richards paid the Florida doctor, where he stayed during the treatment process, and what his hotel room cost.   Sanchez's accuracy leaves something to be desired, however  although Richards admitted the bare facts of Sanchez's book were true, of the details he said, "I couldn't plow through it all because my eyes were watering from laughter."  And the truth in this case follows that pattern: the basic facts are true, but the details have been embellished just a bit. Richards biographer Victor Bockris described the actual treatment process: The treatment involved a hemodialysis process in which the patient's blood was passed through a pump, where it was separated from sterile dialysis fluid by a semipermeable membrane. This allowed any toxic substances that had built up in the bloodstream, which would normally have been secreted by the kidneys, to diffuse out of the blood into the dialysis fluid. (According to Bockris, this treatment took place between the Rolling Stones' 23 September 1973 concert in Innsbruck, Austria, and their show in Berne, Switzerland three days later.   This coincides with his statement that "Richards was frightened by the process because it required being put to sleep for three days," but according to a Rolling Stones tour chronology, the group also performed in Berne on 25 September, which wouldn't have allowed for alleged "three days" of sleep the cure required.  Another passage in Sanchez's book, probably inaccurate, quotes Richards as saying the process took only forty-eight hours, but also mentions that he "spent the rest of the week just resting and building up" his strength.  Obviously Richards couldn't have taken off "the rest of the week" to recuperate and still have performed in a show that took place two days after the treatment began.) Bockris also claims that when Richards was having trouble obtaining a visa for the Rolling Stones' 1975 tour of the United States, Walter Annenberg, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, "helped arrange for Keith to get a visa so long as the U.S. embassy doctor in London could certify that there were no drugs in his bloodstream." So, once again Richards supposedly made the trip to Switzerland to have his blood purified in order to pass the requisite medical certification. Keith Richards himself later explained how the rumor about his "blood change" treatment began: Someone asked me how I cleaned up, so I told them I went to Switzerland and had my blood completely changed. I was just fooling around. I opened my jacket and said, 'How do you like my blood change?' That's all it was, a joke. I was fucking sick of answering that question. So I gave them a story. Of course, Richards doesn't exactly declare in the above statement that he really went to Switzerland; he merely claims that he told people he went to Switzerland.  So, did Richards have his blood changed, did he have it filtered, or is the whole thing a bit of lurid fiction?  The "blood change" claim is almost certainly untrue, because Richards himself says he made up the story, no real evidence supports it, and such a procedure is medically questionable in terms of both safety and effectiveness.  He probably did undergo some type of treatment involving blood filtering, however. True or not, the story's ubiquity is no mystery.  What's more extravagant and outrageous than a jaded rock star who has achieved international fame and has earned all money he could possibly need, yet chooses to spend his days in a drugged stupor?  A rock star who kicks the habit not by sweating it out cold turkey or by spending several weeks in a substance abuse program to kick both the physical habit and his psychological dependency on drugs, but by jetting off to Europe to swap his "dirty" blood for some fresh, clean stuff and be on his (temporarily drug-free) way in a couple of days.   Although Tony Sanchez may have made up or embellished many of his tales about his days with the Rolling Stones, he hit the nail on the head with an expression of outrage that neatly summarizes the essence of public's fascination with this legend: I couldn't help wondering where all this blood was coming from or resenting the decadence of debauched millionaires regaining their health, vampirelike, from the fresh, clean blood of innocents. Last updated:  16 May 2007    Sources:   Bockris, Victor.  Keith Richards.   New York: Poseidon Press, 1992.  ISBN 0-8160-3547-4  (pp. 211-212, 234).  Keith Richards    Karnbach, James and Carol Bernson.  It's Only Rock 'n' Roll.   New York: Facts on File, 1997.  ISBN 0-8160-3547-4  (pp. 144-147).  It's Only Rock 'n' Roll    Sanchez, Tony.  Up and Down with the Rolling Stones.   New York: William Morrow, 1979.  ISBN 0-306-80711-4  (pp. 281-284). Up and Down with the Rolling Stones A new Trump administration directive targeting international students at U.S. colleges is beingchallenged by universitiesin court  and by pundits on the cable news channels. Thenew Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidancewould bar foreign college students from staying in the country if they take all their courses online. International students enrolled atHarvard Universityandother U.S. collegesthat have moved fall-semester classes entirely online due to the coronavirus pandemic will have to leave the U.S. or transfer to a school with in-person teaching, according to the new rule. The rule, if put into effect, could trim the number of foreign students in the U.S. and at specific universities. It could also deal a blow to the U.S. economy, said MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who argued on his primetime TV show that the policy has no upside. Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors, Hayes said, while displaying achart on U.S. education exports. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, (in the) 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Hayes statistics are accurate. In 2019, U.S. service exports from education totaled roughly $44 billion, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. That made education the sixth largest service export for the year, behind services such as personal travel and professional and management consulting, a spokesperson for the International Trade Administration said. Academic experts and representatives from nonprofits focused on international education also backed Hayes claims. An ICE spokesperson said Hayes statement was accurate but declined to comment further due topending litigation. Higher education is one of the few areas in which we have a big surplus of exports over imports, said Dick Startz, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who wrote about the economics of education in a2017 article for the Brookings Institution. All three of the statistics Hayes cited are correct. More than 1 million international students studied at U.S. institutions during the 2018-19 academic year, according to theInstitute of International EducationandNAFSA: Association of International Educators, two nonprofits dedicated to international education. The two organizations reported that those international students contributed more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy during the year. Experts said higher education can be considered an export because international students pay their tuition and living expenses to colleges and universities using money from abroad. International students are buying an American education, Startz said. Hence its an export. Exports from education amounted to roughly $44 billion in 2019, up from about $42.6 billion in 2018, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. Thats more than the U.S. made from exporting manyother goodsand services in the same timeframe. Education ranked sixth among service exports in 2019, the International Trade Administration spokesperson told us. It wasfifth in 2018. Those numbers make sense when you factor in thecost of college, said Judith Scott-Clayton, professor of economics and education at Columbia Universitys Teachers College. If there are 1.1 million international students in the country, and each of them spends about $40,000 on U.S. tuition and living expenses, that gets you to $44 billion, she said. In an email to PolitiFact, Hayes also cited theInternational Trade Administrationand anarticle in the New York Times Magazinein which an Institute of International Education adviser was quoted saying higher education is one of Americas biggest exports. But the article said U.S. schools were losing their international appeal for a number of reasons, including rising tuition costs and various policies enacted under President Donald Trump. Rachel Banks, NAFSAs senior director for public policy and legislative strategy, said in a statement that new international student enrollment is down over 10% since the fall of 2016, a trend NAFSAestimateshas cost the U.S. economy $11.8 billion. Thats before the impacts of a global pandemic and related travel restrictions, several presidential proclamations targeting immigrants and nonimmigrants, and this guidance, Banks said. Therefore, we dont anticipate this downward trajectory to reverse itself anytime soon. Hayes said, Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Government agencies, academic experts and nonprofit organizations said Hayes statistics are correct. The money the U.S. gets from foreign students studying at its colleges and universities makes education one of the countrys top service exports. We rate this statement True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, U.S. Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs.The suburban Milwaukee congressman, who was first elected to the House in 1979, didnt hesitate in replying.Weve got to address the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Sensenbrenner told the editorial board of theMilwaukee Journal Sentinelon Sept. 29, 2011. Its 35 percent.Sensenbrenner argued that if corporate taxes in the U.S. were lower than they are in other parts of the world, more U.S.-based multinational companies would repatriate their profits back to America, creating more jobs here.Its Sensenbrenners opinion that lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate would create jobs. We cant check an opinion.But we can check whether the rate is 35 percent and if it is the highest in the world.Sensenbrenners district director, Loni Hagerup, pointed to a 2011reportfrom theOrganization for Economic Corporation and Development, a Paris-based group of 34 large, industrialized democracies.The widely quoted report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, tops among the member countries.Next in line were France and Belgium (both 34 percent), and then Australia, Japan, Spain and Mexico (each 30 percent).Seems pretty straightforward. Sensenbrenner is right, right?Lets first look at two points:1. Combined corporate tax rateSome analysts, when comparing countries, use the Paris groups report but cite a different figure -- the combined corporate tax rate, rather than merely the corporate tax rate. The combined rate includes not only federal but also state tax rates for corporations. The combined corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent, which ranks second behind Japans 39.5 percent.But Sensenbrenner was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs, so the corporate tax rate -- not the combined rate -- is relevant here.2. Limitations of the corporate rateWe consulted experts at two Washington, D.C. research organizations --TaxFoundationpresidentScottHodgeandRoberton Williams, senior fellow at theTax Policy Center. Both said Sensenbrenner is correct in stating that the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and that the rate is the highest in the world, but they added some context to the discussion.Williams said the corporate tax rate is not a good measure of the taxes that corporations actually pay. While some corporations might pay the full 35 percent rate, many pay considerably less, depending on the types of investments they make, depreciation they take and other factors that reduce taxable income, he said.Hodge agreed. He added, however, that the effective federal tax rate (after deductions) that corporations pay is about 26 percent -- and that also is among the highest rates of all industrialized nations.Our conclusionAsked what the federal government could do to create jobs, Sensenbrenner said lower the corporate tax rate, which he said was 35 percent and the highest in the world. A widely quoted annual report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and is highest among 34 large, industrialized countries. Two experts agreed with the rate and the ranking.We rate Sensenbrenners claim True. Quarterly GDP numbers arent the sexiest item in political news, but when the latest state-level updates were released Thursday  for the third quarter of 2015, which ended Sept. 30  Gov. Pat McCrory trumpeted them on both his official and campaign websites and social media pages. McCrory has dubbed his re-election campaign the Carolina Comeback, trying to focus on good economic news. He said these numbers show North Carolina is squarely on the upswing. A states GDP, or gross domestic product, is the total of all goods and services it produces. And McCrory said that since he took office, no state has increased its gross domestic product faster than North Carolina. He credited the states cuts to the income tax rate and unemployment benefits, and the outsourcing of economic development efforts. He also clarified that he was talking about the numbers since January 2013. We have delivered $4.4 billion in tax relief, fixed our broken unemployment insurance system and reformed our economic development strategy to strengthen North Carolinas economy and put more people back to work, McCrory said in a statement. These efforts have positioned North Carolina as one of the fastest growing populations as well as (the) fastest growing economy in the country. Economies are subject to a number of influences. For this fact check, we wont attempt to say what has or hasnt been responsible for the states economic growth. Instead, we will look just at whether its true that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations as well as fastest growing economy in the country, as McCrory claimed. Population growth Between July 1, 2013  shortly after McCrory took office  and July 1, 2015, North Carolina added about 194,000 people for a total population of 10,043,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Thats close to a 2 percent growth rate and slightly better than the national average over that period. From 2013 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2015, five states added more people than North Carolina. Both years, North Carolina was the ninth largest state. North Carolina isnt adding people at the countrys fastest rate, or by the largest amounts. But it has a better-than-average growth rate, and its on pace tocontinue closing the gapwith larger states. McCrory is correct that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. Economic growth This question is a little trickier. Has North Carolina had the fastest-growing economy in the country under Pat McCrorys administration? There are many ways to measure economic strength, and North Carolina is not the best in every measure, according to the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Economic Analysis. For instance, in 2015, the state was 13th in total income and 39th in per-capita income. From 2013 to 2015 North Carolina also had the 19th-fastest growth in per-capita income and the 11th-fastest growth in total income. North Carolinas unemployment and underemployment rates are also both above the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But McCrory specifically referenced GDP growth. For that reason, and because GDP is generally considered the most comprehensive measure of an economys strength, well look only at GDP growth for the sake of this fact check. And on that, McCrory is right that North Carolina is No. 1. Between the first quarter of 2013 and the third quarter of 2015 (the most recent data we have), no states economic output grew as fast as North Carolinas 13.4 percent rate. Florida and California came close, at 13.3 and 13.2 percent GDP growth, respectively. The average for both the Southeast and the United States as a whole was 9.9 percent. Because economists love to do math, there are other ways of defining the same data over the same period. That 13.4 percent rate specifically refers to current (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis also measures GDPs compound growth rate in current dollars and chained dollars. Chaining is a process that adjusts for inflation, but by using different methods from the more common Consumer Price Index. In that measure, North Carolina tied for first in current dollar amounts and tied for seventh in chained dollar amounts. Its also worth noting that right now were partway through the second quarter of 2016, so the data are lagging behind real time by nearly six months. So while we don't know who currently has the fastest-growing economy, the data does show that North Carolinas growth hasnt been as dominant recently. Looking just from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2015  the most recent numbers available  North Carolinas GDP grew by 2.8 percent. Thats lower than 10 other states and tied with another seven. Its good, but not the best. Our ruling McCrory is right that North Carolina has one of the fastest growing populations. As for the economy, North Carolina did have the fastest-growing GDP in the country between the first quarter of 2013, when McCrory took office, and the third quarter of 2015. The pace has slowed recently, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement. We rate this claim True.