Did John Lennon Anticipate the Election of Donald Trump?
One prominent class of rumor associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign was the notion that various prominent people had foretold the unlikely political ascendancy of Donald Trump decades in advance, everyone from President Ronald Reagan to Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain.   Ronald Reagan Kurt Cobain In early 2017, another example of this class of rumor hit social media, holding that former Beatle John Lennon had opined in 1981 that "the only way we are going to get ourselves out of the messes we've created for ourselves is to find strong and independent leaders ... perhaps a businessman":  The implication of this item was obvious: Lennon had presciently discerned, some thirty-five years in advance, the surprising rise of Donald Trump (a businessman who had never held any public office) to the Republican Party nomination and, ultimately, the White House. The notion that John Lennon actually said anything like the statement attributed to him above in 1981 (or at any other time) has several questionable aspects, however: 1)  John Lennon was shot to death in December 1980, so he couldn't have said anything in 1981. 2)  Nearly every word of every interview and public statement John Lennon gave during his adult lifetime has been documented and analyzed, yet we found no evidence that this putative quotation of his had been recorded and reproduced anywhere prior to its online appearance in 2017. 3)  This statement doesn't even sound like something John Lennon would have said  if there was one group he held greater disdain for than politicians, it was businessmen.  When the Beatles were attempting to gain a controlling interest in their publishing company, Northern Songs, in 1969, Lennon famously derailed negotiations at one point by reportedly proclaiming that he was sick of "being fucked around by men in suits sitting on their fat arses in the City."   If the former Beatle had proposed looking to someone other than politicians for leadership, his suggested alternative likely would have been anyone other than businessmen.
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 Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. OK folks, we don't often get serious but this is important. Little Kyron Horman has been missing and his mother just put up this billboard in WA state.... please share everyone... please! This boy needs to be home with his Momma :(((  As noted on the web site of National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Kyron Richard Horman, then seven years old, went missing from his Portland, Oregon, home back in June 2010: Kyron Richard Horman He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with "CSI" in green letters and a handprint graphic. He was also wearing black cargo pants, white socks, and black Sketchers sneakers with orange trim. Kyron may wear glasses. More than two years later, this missing child case was brought to widespread public attention in conjunction with legal maneuvering, in which a $10 million lawsuit was brough by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, which sought to compel Kyron's stepmother, Terri Horman, to either return Kyron or provide information about what had happened to him: More than two-years after 6-year-old Oregon boy Kyron Horman disappeared, the boy's stepmother is asking a judge to delay hearing a civil suit that says she knows the child's location.  The lawsuit was filed against Terri Horman by Kyron's biological mother, Desiree Young, asking the judge to order the stepmother to return Kyron or, if he's dead, say where his remains are located. The lawsuit also seeks $10 million. Terri Horman says in a brief that a criminal investigation is under way, and the civil suit should be stayed two years while it plays out. Investigators have long focused on Terri Horman, although they have not named her as a suspect or filed criminal charges. The lawsuit accuses her of kidnapping Kyron, by herself or with help. The boy was reportedly last seen on the morning of June 4, 2010 at Skyline Elementary School in Portland, where his stepmother had taken him for a science fair. Five years on, Kyron's case was still being actively pursued by law enforcement, friends, and family: As the five-year anniversary of Kyron Horman's disappearance approaches, The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office wants the public to know the search is still active. Friends and family members said they plan to put together another search effort this summer. But Lt. Steve Alexander said the sheriff's office had to date received more than 4,000 tips in the case. And he said the investigation is definitely still active. "A full time sheriff's office detective is primarily assigned to the Kyron Horman missing child investigation, and efforts to locate Kyron," Alexander said. "Additionally, a now-retired FBI Agent with years of experience in the Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams continues his involvement in this case, reviewing the evidence amassed by investigators." He said tips in the case come in from all over the world nearly every day. Kyron's stepmother Terri Horman, whom a judge described as a prime suspect in her stepson's disappearance, has twice tried to change her name, and in January 2016 she was reported to have moved out of Oregon to California: The stepmother of missing Portland boy Kyron Horman has moved out of Oregon. In October [2015], Terri Horman changed her Oregon driver's license to an address in Sacramento, California. In August 2014, Terri Horman tried to change her name to Claire Stella Sullivan.  During a court hearing, Horman said she wanted a new name to "start over a new life without the stigma of Horman attached to it."  A Douglas County judge denied that request. Four months later, Horman applied for another name change in Lane County.  She wanted to change her name to Claire Kisiel, but later withdrew the request In a 20 January 2016 interview with People magazine, Terri Horman asserted she had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance: Terri has never been named a suspect or a person of interest in the case surrounding Kyron's disappearance, which officials for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Department say is an "ongoing investigation."  Still, a cloud of suspicion has followed Terri, and she's ready to answer questions that people have wanted to know. Terri [says] she did not harm or kill Kyron and has no idea what happened to him or where he is.  "The answer is what I've said a hundred times  I don't know." A Facebook group has been established to help disseminate information about Kyron and raise funds for ongoing search efforts. Facebook Leibowitz, Barry.  "Kyron Horman's Stepmom Wants Delay in Lawsuit."
  CBSNews.com  25 July 2012. On 10 October 2016, an meme appeared featuring a photograph of Hillary Clinton accompanied by text of a purported quote from her during from the second presidential debate the night before:   The quote was not uttered by Clinton during the any presidential debate. It does not appear in the transcript of the event, nor can Clinton be heard speaking this phrase during the broadcast.  transcript broadcast It seems to have originated with a social media user named Rocky Raczkowski, who (according to his post) was not directly quoting Clinton, but was giving his interpretation of what he thought Clinton had said in response to a question about Supreme Court justices: Rocky Raczkowski   Raczkowski's interpretation was later shared by Mike Hewitt, a politician and radio show host, who posted the message as if it were a direct quote from Clinton, while darkly hinting at a media so corrupt that they refused to cover the what she had really said: message   Of course, the reason that most media sources did not report on this quote is that it is not a quote, but a highly subjective (and inaccurate) interpretation of her words. Here's Clinton's actual response to a question about how she would select a Supreme Court justice, which is nothing like the questionable paraphrase offered by Raczkowski and shared by Hewitt: QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice? RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Well, youre right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesnt agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we dont always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a womans right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesnt always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because youre wealthy and you can give more money to something doesnt mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else. So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, theyve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people. 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 Oct. 2, 2020, shortly after news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had tested positive for COVID-19, an image supposedly showing an email from his presidential campaign asking supporters to donate to Trump's recovery started going viral on social media: This email did not originate with the Trump campaign.   Snopes' staff members who subscribe to the Trump team's campaign emails did not receive this request. The @TrumpEmail Twitter account, which monitors political emails from the Trump team, also reported that this email did not originate with the president's campaign:  In addition to the fact that this email did not land in our inbox, the message also makes a somewhat suspicious request for a very precise monetary figure: $421 million. This is the same amount, according to The New York Times' report on the president's tax returns, that Trump appears to be personally responsible for in loans and debt.  report The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Trump campaign have also confirmed that this email did not originate with them. RNC spokeswoman Mandi Merritt told PolitiFact: "That is a fake." PolitiFact Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  New York Times.  2 October 2020. Funke, Daniel.  "Trump Did Not Ask Supporters for $421 Million."
  Politifact.  2 October 2020. Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes  undisputed by Hutchison  showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True. Claim: Three suspicious Middle Eastern men (later found to be likely ISIS operatives)attemptedto purchase vehicles in Virginia. [dot-mfalse]PROBABLY [/dot-mfalse] Example: [Collected via e-mail and Facebook, November2015]Friend posted this. Seems fake. Just passing it along to be checked.   Beware sellers, 3 muslims tried to buy car from frederick dealer and one of them was identified as know ISIS member per FBI. They did not want to show any ID or do paper work for the car so please screen the people wanting to by your vehicles.   Origins: A series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015 understandably intensified extant concerns about the risk posed by ISIS; on 22November 2015, a Twitter user published an unsourced rumor pertaining to suspicious Middle Eastern men in the area of Frederick:HOLD UP pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw   $B$ (@brookelyles_) November 23, 2015 The tweet contained a screenshot of a (presumably already circulating) text message. Its sender was identified only as "Gianella," and the text described a purported interaction at a car dealership. The rumor lacked a large number of key details such as the date of the incident, the city in which it occurred, and the name of the dealership in question. (The original tweet appeared to occur on 20 November 2015, and was subsequently deleted after screenshots circulated.) Absentbasic information about the claims aside, the rumor didn't make very much logical sense. According to the individual who sent the text, the three men oddly asserted that they wished to buy a vehicle "whether it passed inspection or not" (apparently unaware of the higher likelihood of such a transaction being private party). Without ostensible reason, the men then informed the dealership they planned only to use the vehicle for twodays  a tidbit of information that served only to raise possible red flags obstructing the purchase should the dealer opt not to engage in a sketchy, possibly illegallow-profit transaction. The unnamed dealership's manager then purportedly dialed 911 in earshot of the suspicious men (rather than surreptitiously), alerting them to the imminent arrival of police and causing them to flee. At this point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrived and dusted for prints, the results of which appeared to be immediately available, with information disclosed to low-level car dealership employees for unclear reasons. Finally, the FBI opted to inform the car salespeople that the men were in fact likely on a small list of suspected ISIS operatives, despite there being no good reason for federal agents to do so (as it served only to compromise any investigation). The amount of time elapsed between the (still undated) visit and the FBI's disclosure of this information was also not included in the screenshot. Details in the text message weren't the only urban legend hallmarks attached to the tale. Just before the 22 November 2015 tweet went locally viral, the claim popped up at separate dealerships in the vicinity of Frederick and Gaithersburg, Virginia (tweets in the conversation cited the "friend of a friend" involved with the original rumor):@A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel I had these guys as my customers too. I was at one of the dealerships they went to.  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg.   MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 HOLD UP pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw    $B$ (@brookelyles_) November 23, 2015 November 23, 2015  The tweet contained a screenshot of a (presumably already circulating) text message. Its sender was identified only as "Gianella," and the text described a purported interaction at a car dealership. The rumor lacked a large number of key details such as the date of the incident, the city in which it occurred, and the name of the dealership in question. (The original tweet appeared to occur on 20 November 2015, and was subsequently deleted after screenshots circulated.) Absentbasic information about the claims aside, the rumor didn't make very much logical sense. According to the individual who sent the text, the three men oddly asserted that they wished to buy a vehicle "whether it passed inspection or not" (apparently unaware of the higher likelihood of such a transaction being private party). Without ostensible reason, the men then informed the dealership they planned only to use the vehicle for twodays  a tidbit of information that served only to raise possible red flags obstructing the purchase should the dealer opt not to engage in a sketchy, possibly illegallow-profit transaction. The unnamed dealership's manager then purportedly dialed 911 in earshot of the suspicious men (rather than surreptitiously), alerting them to the imminent arrival of police and causing them to flee. At this point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrived and dusted for prints, the results of which appeared to be immediately available, with information disclosed to low-level car dealership employees for unclear reasons. Finally, the FBI opted to inform the car salespeople that the men were in fact likely on a small list of suspected ISIS operatives, despite there being no good reason for federal agents to do so (as it served only to compromise any investigation). The amount of time elapsed between the (still undated) visit and the FBI's disclosure of this information was also not included in the screenshot. Details in the text message weren't the only urban legend hallmarks attached to the tale. Just before the 22 November 2015 tweet went locally viral, the claim popped up at separate dealerships in the vicinity of Frederick and Gaithersburg, Virginia (tweets in the conversation cited the "friend of a friend" involved with the original rumor): @A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel I had these guys as my customers too. I was at one of the dealerships they went to.  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg.   MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg. @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn    MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015   @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @ListenToMyEyes November 21, 2015 @mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around.. @mg11thirty    Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 November 21, 2015  That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed): @__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI November 24, 2015  The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet? @Marshy_Lillypad    Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 November 24, 2015 @MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @MindOfAPSYCHO_ November 24, 2015 @Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @Meregod November 24, 2015   The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.   Last updated: 30November 2015 Originally published: 30November 2015 In August 2019, as many people took to the Internet to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote on paper, a piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly listed "9 things that women couldn't do until 1971":   The following list is of NINE things a woman couldn't do in 1971  yes the date is correct, 1971. In 1971 a woman could not: 1. Get a Credit Card in her own name  it wasn't until 1974 that a law forced credit card companies to issue cards to women without their husband's signature. 2. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for the offense of getting pregnant  that changed with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of *1978*! 3. Serve on a jury - It varied by state (Utah deemed women fit for jury duty way back in 1879), but the main reason women were kept out of jury pools was that they were considered the center of the home, which was their primary responsibility as caregivers. They were also thought to be too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses. In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida law that exempted women from serving on juries. It wasn't until 1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states. 4. Fight on the front lines  admitted into military academies in 1976 it wasn't until 2013 that the military ban on women in combat was lifted. Prior to 1973 women were only allowed in the military as nurses or support staff. 5. Get an Ivy League education - Yale and Princeton didn't accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn't admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). Brown (which merged with women's college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but, by and large, women in the '60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold. 6. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. Indeed the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977! 7. Decide not to have sex if their husband wanted to  spousal rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Read that again ... 1993. 8. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man. Sex discrimination wasn't outlawed in health insurance until 2010 and today many, including sitting elected officials at the Federal level, feel women don't mind paying a little more. Again, that date was 2010. 9. The birth control pill: Issues like reproductive freedom and a woman's right to decide when and whether to have children were only just beginning to be openly discussed in the 1960s. In 1957, the FDA approved of the birth control pill but only for "severe menstrual distress." In 1960, the pill was approved for use as a contraceptive. Even so, the pill was illegal in some states and could be prescribed only to married women for purposes of family planning, and not all pharmacies stocked it. Some of those opposed said oral contraceptives were "immoral, promoted prostitution and were tantamount to abortion." It wasn't until several years later that birth control was approved for use by all women, regardless of marital status. In short, birth control meant a woman could complete her education, enter the work force and plan her own life. Oh, and one more thing, prior to 1880 which is just a few years before the photo of this very proud lady was taken, the age of consent for sex was set at 10 or 12 in more states, with the exception of our neighbor Delaware  where it was 7 YEARS OLD! Feminism is NOT just for other women. KNOW your HERstory. A similar post on Facebook with tens of thousands of shares reported much the same in 2016 from user Lisa Bialac-Jehle. post on Facebook In general, the list above accurately reports nine things that women couldn't do in 1971. We'll take a closer look at each item below: Get a credit card in her own name As this post explains, banks were able to discriminate against women applying for credit cards until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in October 1974. Women could get credit cards prior to this legislation, but as The Smithsonian notes, they were likely to be asked a barrage of personal questions and were often required to be accompanied by a man to co-sign for a credit card. Even then, women often received cards with lower limits or higher rates: Equal Credit Opportunity Act Smithsonian Forty years ago, any woman applying for a credit card could be asked a barrage of questions: Was she married? Did she plan to have children? Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card, and some discounted the wages of women by as much as 50 percent when calculating their credit card limits. As women and minorities pushed for equal civil rights in various arenas, credit cards became the focus of a series of hearings in which women documented the discrimination they faced. And, finally, in 1974  forty years ago this year  the Senate passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender, race, religion and national origin. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for getting pregnant Women faced a number of work-related consequences for getting pregnant prior to the passage of thePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. On the 40th anniversary of this law, the ACLU posted a statement explaining how pregnancy often resulted in pink slips for working women: Pregnancy Discrimination Act statement Forty years ago, working women in the United States won the legal protection to become working mothers. On Oct. 31, 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, making it illegal for employers to deny a woman a job  or promotion, or higher pay, or any other opportunity  because she is pregnant. The statute had an immediate, dramatic impact on women's ability to fully participate in the workforce. Although on-the-job sex discrimination had been outlawed more than a decade earlier, pregnancy wasn't legally recognized as a type of sex discrimination. As a result, a pregnancy often resulted in a pink slip. Some employers even imposed formal policies prohibiting pregnancy outright because their female employees were expected to project a certain image  for example, flight attendants, who were expected by airlines to convey sexual availability to their businessman customers, and teachers, who were expected by school districts to project chasteness to their young pupils. Serve on a jury Women's road to the jury box was a long one. While the state of Utah deemed women qualified for jury duty back in 1898, it took the other 49 states several decades to reach the same conclusion. The ACLU noted that women were excluded from jury duties for a number of reasons: noted Aside from the "defect of sex," women were excluded from juries for a variety of reasons: their primary obligation was to their families and children; they should be shielded from hearing the details of criminal cases, particularly those involving sex offenses; they would be too sympathetic to persons accused of crimes; and keeping male and female jurors together during long trials could be injurious to women. While this viral posts states that it wasn't until "1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states," we found that this battle was still being fought for at least another two years. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it was constitutionally unacceptable for states to bar women from juries. From a 1975 article in The New York Times: The New York Times The Supreme Court ruled today that shifting economic and social patterns of the last dozen years have made it constitutionally unacceptable for states to deny women equal opportunity to serve on juries. The 8to1 decision will have little practical effect on the makeup of juries. All states, including Louisiana where the case originated, now have laws that do not exempt women from jury service, although women are treated differently from men in some instances involving such service. But the majority broke important philosophical ground by acknowledging for the first time that the role of women is society was changing and that the courts must recognize their growing economic independence in assessing their legal rights. "If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service," Associate Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority, "that time has long since passed." Fight on the front lines Women in the United States have been aiding military operations as nurses, cooks, and in other non-combat positions since the Revolutionary War in 1775. However, it wasn't until 1976 that the United States Military Academy at West Point accepted women to the Corps of Cadets. Still, it would be several more years until women would find their way to the front lines. In 1994, the Pentagon restricted women from serving in "artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles." This ban wasn't lifted until 2013: several more years restricted 2013 The US military officially lifted a ban on female soldiers serving in combat roles on Thursday and said that anyone qualified should get a chance to fight on the front lines of war regardless of their sex. At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America's battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. "Everyone is entitled to a chance," said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military's 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Get an Ivy League education The Ivy League is comprised of eight universities in the northeastern part of the United States. While women were able to attend Cornell University as early as the 1870s, it wasn't until 1983 that the final Ivy League school, Columbia College, started to admit women: 1983 The last all-male school in the Ivy League became a coeducational one yesterday when Columbia College enrolled women for the first time in its 229-year history. It was a day of celebration at Columbia, with few alumni or students criticizing the change, and with college administrators saying the decision to admit women had resulted in the most talented freshman class ever. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to Time, the term "sexual harassment" was coined by a group of students at Cornell University in 1975. The term was popularized in a New York Times article published that same year, and in 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could take legal action against her employer for sexual harassment: Time New York Times The phrase "sexual harassment" was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University. A former employee of the university, Carmita Wood, filed a claim for unemployment benefits after she resigned from her job due to unwanted touching from her supervisor. Cornell had refused Wood's request for a transfer, and denied her the benefits on the grounds that she quit for "personal reasons." Wood together with activists at the university's Human Affairs Office, formed a group called Working Women United. At a Speak Out event hosted by the group, secretaries, mailroom clerks, filmmakers, factory workers and waitresses shared their stories, revealing that the problem extended beyond the university setting. The women spoke of masturbatory displays, threats and pressure to trade sexual favors for promotions ... ... By 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using the EEOC as the vehicle for redress. The Supreme Court upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was based on the complaints of Mechelle Vinson, a bank employee whose boss intimidated her into having sex with him in vaults and basements up to fifty times. Vinson was African American, as were many of the litigants in pioneering sexual harassment cases; some historians suggest that the success of racial discrimination cases during these same years encouraged women of color to vigorously pursue their rights at work. Decide not to have sex if her husband wanted to This item is referring to spousal rape. The first person to be convicted of spousal rape in the U.S. was a Massachusetts bartender who broke into the home of his estranged wife in 1979 and raped her: convicted English common law, the source of much traditional law in the U.S., had long held that it wasn't legally possible for a man to rape his wife. It was in 1736 that Sir Matthew Hale  the same jurist who said that it was hard to prove a rape accusation from a woman whose personal life wasn't entirely "innocent," setting the standard that a woman's past sexual experiences could be used by the defense in a rape case explained that marriage constituted permanent consent that could not be retracted. That idea stood for centuries. Then, in 1979, a pair of cases highlighted changing legal attitudes about the concept. Until then, most state criminal codes had rape definitions that explicitly excluded spouses. (In fact, as TIME later pointed out, it wasn't just the case that saying "no" to one's husband didn't make the act that followed rape; in addition, saying "no" to one's husband was usually grounds for him to get a divorce.) As the year opened, a man in Salem, Ore., was found not guilty of raping his wife, though they both stated that they had fought before having sex. But, even as the verdict was returned, a National Organization for Women spokesperson told TIME that "the very fact that there has been such a case" meant that change was in the air  and she was quickly proved right. The case believed to be the first-ever American conviction for spousal rape came that fall, when a Salem, Mass., bartender drunkenly burst into the home he used to share with his estranged wife and raped her. It's not hard to see how this case was the one that made the possibility of rape between a married couple clear to the public: they were in the middle of a divorce, and the crime involved house invasion and violence. As TIME noted, several other states had also adopted laws making it possible to pursue such a case, though they had not yet been put to the test. Even though the first conviction for spousal rape occurred during the 1970s, it wasn't until 1993 that spousal rape was officially illegal in all 50 states. While marital rape has been technically illegal in all 50 states since 1993, advocates argue that there are still legal loopholes in some states that allow for marital rape to be treated differently than rape. legal loopholes Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as men This item refers to the practice of "gender rating" by health insurance companies, which typically resulted in higher premiums for women seeking individual health insurance. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to do away with the practice. Obamacare NPR reported: reported Any woman who has bought health insurance on her own probably didn't find herself humming the old show tune, "I Enjoy Being a Girl." That's because more than 90 percent of individual plans charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage, a practice known as gender rating. Women spend $1 billion more annually on their health insurance premiums than they would if they were men because of gender rating, according to a recent report by the National Women's Law Center. Under the health care overhaul, the practice is banned starting in 2014. The birth control pill This post correctly states that the FDA first approved an oral contraceptive (a birth-control pill called Enovid) in 1957. However, at the time, the pill was only approved for use as a "treatment of severe menstrual disorders," and the FDA required that it be labeled with a warning that Enovid will prevent ovulation. A few years later in 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as a contraceptive. Still, the pill was only available to married couples. It wasn't until 1972 that birth-control pills were available to all women, regardless of marital status: 1972 Then came the landmark date, marking the biggest change to America's contraceptive potential in history. On May 9, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid, an oral contraceptive pill released by G.D. Searle and Company. By 1965, almost 6.5 million American women were on "The Pill," the oral contraceptive's enduring vague nickname, which is thought to have stemmed from women requesting it from their doctors as discreetly as possible. That same year, the Supreme Court struck down state laws that prohibited contraception use, though only for married couples. (Unmarried people were out of luck until 1972, when birth control was deemed legal for all.) Ortiz, Erik.  "'It's Disgusting': Loopholes Remain in North Carolina's Sexual Assault Laws. Advocates Ask Why."   NBC News.  11 May 2019. Eveleth, Rose.  "Forty Years Ago, Women Had a Hard Time Getting Credit Cards."   Smithsonian.  8 January 2014. Thomas, Gillian.  "Employees Who Have Babies Are Still Getting the Axe."   ACLU.  31 October 2018. McDonald, Laughlin.  "A Jury of One's Peers."   ACLU.  18 March 2011. Harris, Paul.  "Women in Combat: US Military Officially Lifts Ban on Female Soldiers."   The Guardian.  25 January 2013. Rothman, Lily.  "When Spousal Rape First Became a Crime in the U.S."   Time.  28 July 2015. Weaver, Warren.  "High Court Backs Women's Jury Rights."   The New York Times.  22 January 1975. Bumiller, Elisabeth and Thom Shanker.  "Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women."   The New York Times.  23 January 2013. Belkin, Lisa.  "First Coed Class Enters Columbia College."   The New York Times.  30 August 1983. Cohen, Sascha.  "A Brief History of Sexual Harassment in America Before Anita Hill."   Time.  11 April 2016. Nemy, End.  "Women Begin to Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment at Work."   The New York Times.  19 August 1975. NPR.  "Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop."   17 July 2012. Gibson, Megan.  "The Long, Strange History of Birth Control."   Time.  2 February 2015. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal have become something of a team, delivering a one-two punch for various economic development projects in Georgia, including metro Atlanta. Although the two line up on opposite sides of the political aisle, they have managed to put the D and R aside to work together on getting funding for Georgia ports, get a new football stadium built and get Porsche to move its North American headquarters close to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The relationship hascaught the eyeof politicos far and near as an example of how leadership should work. But that hasnt always been the case. And Reed noted this last month during the Governing Georgia Leadership Forum in downtown Atlanta. My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office, Reed said. But you would have thought previously that walk was a 10k. PolitiFact Georgia is always looking for an opportunity for a little fun and exercise. So we grabbed our pedometer and set out for a walk. At the Leadership Forum, Reed and Deal were co-presenters for a 30-minute session titled Shared Fortunes -- Building a Better Georgia. The description of the discussion said: the state's governor, a Republican, and the mayor of its largest city, a Democrat, discuss how they are working together to advance a common agenda. And to work together you have to be together. And being together includes office visits, so we set out to check the distance between them. Not depending on our math alone, we got out a pedometer for a more accurate step count. We walked the path from Reeds office in Atlanta City Hall to Deals office on the main floor of the Georgia State Capitol, and back again, twice. We began walking at a normal pace. But the mayor stands at 6feet, a full six inches taller than this PolitiFact Georgia reporter, so we extended our stride a bit. Our calculations found that Reed was correct. The distance from the governors office to the first step outside City Hall was 300 steps. Throw in the distance from the outside City Hall steps to Reeds actual office and the step count increases between 65 and 100 steps, depending on the route through the lobby, whether you take a short ramp or the few steps up to the main office level, and stride of the walker. To sum up, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said his office was about 300 steps from Gov. Nathan Deals office. Walking the path that the mayor is likely to take, it is 300 steps from Deals office to the bottom of the first step of Atlanta City Hall, where Reeds office is located. Walking all the way to the receptionist that sits just outside the mayors office adds additional steps, based on our calculations, which could make the mayors claim off by about one-third. Reeds overall point was that the political divide between he and Deal has closed. Based on their history of delivering economic development projects for the city and state, that statement is correct. But the mayor is off just a bit on his distance claim if you take his statement literally. We rated Reeds claim Mostly True. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here A widely circulated poem dedicated to the work of law enforcement was shared more than 125,000 times in late summer 2020 after the original user insinuated that actor Kurt Russell had shared it  and with it his alleged opposition to defunding the police.  "The Badge" went viral in the months following the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while in police custody. Protesters in the wake of Floyds death called for the defunding of police in an effort to redirect funds to make law enforcement training more robust and increase social services for communities that face a greater risk of police brutality and incarceration. George Floyd defunding of police   We looked into the poem and found no evidence Russell is connected to it in any way, or that he had made political statements opposing the defunding of police. Russell is known for his distaste of social media and, despite dozens of fake profiles pretending to be the veteran actor, does not have verified accounts on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In general, Russell is not active on social media and had not recently appeared in public making such declarations. distaste In fact, since the poem's original posting in June 2020, language and imagery shared alongside of it underwent several changes that show the kind of manipulation a social media post may experience in a short amount of time. "The Badge," a poem that recognizes police officers and their efforts to help society, was originally credited to an anonymous source and was first posted to social media on June 7. It begins: June 7 This badge ran towards certain death as the Towers collapsed on 9-11. This badge ran into the line of fire to save the people in the Pulse Night Club. This badge sheltered thousands as bullets rained down from the Mandalay Hotel in Las Vegas. This badge protected a BLM rally that left five officers dead in Dallas. This badge ran into the Sandy Hook School to stop a school shooter. The poem goes on to highlight other roles and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, including escorting the elderly across the street and helping to return crying children to their mothers. But since it was originally shared to Facebook, the 22-line composition underwent several iterations. A second version of the poem surfaced in a post shared to the Victor Valley News Facebook page, a media outlet in Victorville, California, with an additional introduction that read: shared Victor Valley News Yes ... lets all join in the hatred of all police for the sins of a few. Lets defund one of the most important public institutions in our countries history. Lets have all badges removed and allow people to tend to their own safety and security. This wording above appears to have originated in a blog post titled, "In Honor of Uncle Bob Roberts Killed in the Line of Duty," posted on June 14 by a self-described entrepreneur. blog post The post in question that Snopes readers asked us about added the above introduction and, in its most recent iteration, social media users included a headshot of Russell accompanied by the following: Amazing Post!! Kurt Russell. The additional wording insinuated that the actor had an affiliation with the Aug. 6, 2020 post. In less than a week, the post had been shared over 125,000 times on Facebook. Aug. 6, 2020 The libertarian actor has been at the heart of several viral claims falsely linking him to supporting U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 2016 image that showed him and partner, Goldie Hawn, wearing photoshopped pro-Trump shirts. In 2018, a fake Twitter account using Russells face as a profile picture incorrectly quoted the actor as having called Trump relentless, dedicated, and determined. The following year, a right-leaning Facebook page posted a meme that falsely insinuated Russell referred to Democrats as enemies of the state. libertarian 2016 image quoted enemies of the state. Mitt Romney came to coal country on Aug. 14, standing before a crowd of miners in eastern Ohio and pledging to fight for their jobs.You could be forgiven if you thought this was much ado about 3,150 jobs -- the number employed directly by coal operations in Ohio, at least before two mines announced layoffs recently. But Romneys greater point was about how coal fires so many power plants in Ohio and the region, and how, he says, environmental regulation from President Barack Obamas administration threatens jobs at those plants, too. This could drive up the cost of electricity for every Ohioan, Romney said.This debate -- over the cost of electricity, the shift among power plants to natural gas, the environmental and health risks, the role the government should or shouldnt play -- has been building for years. And after the event, the Obama campaign had a response, saying that Romneys position on coal has changed substantially since he was governor of Massachusetts.Immediately after becoming governor, Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people, said an Obama campaign news release. The claim was similar to one the Obama team made in a radio ad, and Obama reelection aides backed it with specific quotes Romney made in February, 2003, when Romney was the freshly elected governor of Massachusetts. The quotes: The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from astate of Massachusetts newsreleasein which Romney said:  If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health.Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station.In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly.Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the Filthy Five plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms -- all per year.As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbors pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks at 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion -- that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentionednews release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor:Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming.This was in a news release issued by the governors aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romneys development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the  Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts.The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbors then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts emissions rules -- and plant supporters showed up to to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: That plant kills people. And to those including city officials who argued that this would cost jobs: I will not create jobs that kill people.Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third ownerwill build a natural gas plantthere). Thats what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in email.So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romneys words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor?We kept looking, because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. And the news release under Romneys name suggested it as well.Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming.Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasnt that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today?No, say environmentalists who include authorities from the CLF.Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently.When he said that this plant kills people, he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest, said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the conservation foundation.Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Associations air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce -- and that Romney now criticizes.The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed, Kaplan agreed. He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked.To see if this was accurate -- that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks) -- we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensiveClean Air Marketsdatabase.Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund.The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held.Its all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio, Walke said.You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. Its because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plants boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically.Its important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits wont take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent.But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romneys name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May, 2004, issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them:First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills and poor coordination.Romney was a champion of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. He was one of the reasons we got them through.Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said,  That plant kills people. But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced.And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal.If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, its fairly safe to assume that one would also support such things nationally, said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at  Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health.The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio.The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time.But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship,  the Obama campaign claim about Romneys coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day.On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Mostly True.