Caroline Kennedy's thoughts on Barack Obama.
Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012
On 5 December 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article reporting that President-elect Donald Trump had officially announced former Alaska governor (and 2008 vice presidential candidate) Sarah Palin was in line to become his new Science and Technology Adviser: World News Daily Report article Critics of the administration have already voiced their concerns over the choice of the former Alaska governor, known to be a fierce climate change denier, to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology of the United States. Far too long has the Chinese narrative over climate change kept our economy in a rut. Its time to open the pumps and as I like to say: Drill, baby, drill!   Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor  This tweet did not appear in Twitter's history of Trump's account, and no other news outlet reported what would have been an undoubtedly highly newsworthy appointment.  history That lack of additional coverage is because this report originated with World News Daily Report, a fake news site. The site used an old and unrelated image of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin together (which dated to 2011) to suggest that the pair had met during the President-elect's transition period in late 2016. image 2011 On 4 May 2004, a campaign swing through the Midwest saw President Bush visiting Lebanon, Ohio, where  as he worked the crowd outside the Golden Lamb (the state's oldest inn)  he was photographed giving a comforting hug to 15-year-old Ashley Faulkner, whose mother was killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.  The moment was captured with a digital camera by Ashley's father, Lynn Faulkner. (Ashley's mother, Wendy Ruth Faulkner, a vice president of a risk management and insurance brokerage company, was working in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11 and did not survive the collapse of the building.) Wendy Ruth Faulkner Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion It started out as a fluke.  Lynn Faulkner had been offered an extra ticket to a Bush campaign event by his neighbor Linda Prince.  Mr. Faulkner decided to offer it to his 15-year old daughter Ashley who he expected would decline, as she would have to miss some school to attend.  But his daughter surprised him.  Ashley reminded her dad how four years ago they attended a similar event when then Texas Governor George W. Bush visited the same spot on the campaign trail.  Ashley remembered attending that event with both her father and her mother Wendy Faulkner.  It was raining that day and they all stood in the rain awaiting Governor Bush "eating Triscuit crackers" enjoying the time together and hoping to get a glimpse of the would-be president.  Ashley recalled holding her mothers hand as they waited. So she decided to go again this year, but this time her mother could not attend.  Wendy Faulkner was murdered on 9/11/01 in the south tower of the World Trade Center.  She was there on the 104th floor for a one-day meeting.  Ashley decided to miss school in honor and remembrance of her mother and attend the event. [Rest of article here.] here An editorial about the story behind the photograph can be found at the Washington Dispatch web site, which also includes a page of reader-submitted commentary about the story. Washington Dispatch commentary  Goetz, Kristina.  "Bush Pauses to Comfort Teen."
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  6 May 2004.

 Hallett, Joe.  "No Apology from Bush Just Yet."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  5 May 2004  (p. A1).

 Hallett, Joe.  "Despite the Post-9/11 Tribulations, the President Remains a Leader."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  9 May 2004  (p. B5).

 Rairden, C.K.  "Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion."
  The Washington Dispatch.  10 May 2004.

 Zimkus, Charlie.  "Our Artist Records Warm Welcome for President Bush."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  6 May 2004  (p. B8). An image purportedly showing a screenshot from a Russian state TV news program featuring eight Republican U.S. senators -- Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and John Thune (R-SD) -- made its way online in January 2019, along with the claim that the pictured American lawmakers were being "honored" or "thanked" for lifting sanctions against three companies controlled by Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska:   This image has been posted to social media accompanied by a variety of descriptive captions: posted social media This image is a genuine screenshot from the news program "60 " (60 Minutes) aired on Channel 1 Russia on 17 January 2019. The graphic featuring the 8 GOP lawmakers originally appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (the MSNBC logo is visible in the bottom right hand corner of the graphic) the day prior during a segment concerning the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed on three companies controlled by oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska. sanctions The graphic appears at the 9:30 mark of the following video, while a transcription from Maddow's report on these sanctions appears below the video: transcription  Shortly before Christmas, the Trump administration quietly released plans to lift U.S. government sanctions on companies connected to Deripaska. Deripaska is sanctioned because of the U.S. -- because of the Russian government interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016. Now, the sanctions on Deripaska's companies are consequential. The companies linked to Deripaska happen to be huge companies. So, even if you set aside the sanctions' effects on Deripaska personally, unsanctioning these huge Russian companies will also be really substantially economically beneficial to the Russian economy as a whole. Under American law governing sanctions like this, Congress has 30 days to review any decision by the administration to lift these kinds of sanctions. Within that 30-day window, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer brought forward legislation to in fact challenge that decision by the Trump administration, to block the lifting of the Deripaska-related sanctions. As we reported last night, every Democrat in the Senate chamber voted with Schumer on this, as did 11 Republican senators, a heterogeneous bunch of Republican senators, who broke ranks with Mitch McConnell and sided with the Democrats to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. That's a big number of Republican senators breaking ranks, especially after the Trump administration lobbied the Senate and the House really aggressively on this issue. Well, today, this afternoon, despite those 11 Republican senators breaking ranks and being willing to side with the Democrats on this, it turned out to be not enough because today there was a crucial vote on this matter which came with not a 50-vote threshold, but a 60-vote threshold to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. Schumer and the Democrats and the breakaway Republicans were able to put together 57 votes, but 57 isn't 60, and so you can thank top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell. You can thank all of these other Republican senators who get all of this public credit for supposedly being so hawkish and so realistic on Russia. You can thank them all for voting today to give Vladimir Putin's government in Russia a huge big economic present and voting to give Oleg Deripaska the biggest break of his life, even while his potential role in the Russian attack on our election remains a critical matter that is under ongoing investigation related to multiple criminal cases. Julia Davis, an investigative journalist and Russian media analyst, was one of the first to notice Maddow's graphic being featured on Russian State TV. Davis shared this screenshot on Twitter along with a brief message explaining its context. Twitter Davis wrote: "#Russia's state TV reports that for the first time since 2014, the US is lifting sanctions from Russian companies [#Deripaska's Rusal et al.] The host laughs out loud about the Democrats not getting enough votes to block the effort, expresses hope that this is just the beginning." We've included the relevant segment below from the "60 " broadcast, which starts around the 31-second mark (00:31) below: A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin."  A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin." MSNBC.  "Transcript: 1/16/19, The Rachel Maddow Show."
  16 January 2019. Vogel, Kenneth.  "Democrats Fall Short in Russia Sanctions Vote."
  The New York Times.  16 January 2019. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. Legend:  A young woman on a date who is too timid to ask where the toilet is meets with disastrous results. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 1999] This girl had been dating a rich guy in New York City. After a few months he took her to dinner at his parents mansion. During dinner she needed to use the toilet. Not wanting to be indiscreet she asked where the "powder room" was. The parents had the butler assist her to the powder room. When she went inside it had only a vanity and sink. She did not want to embarass herself by asking for the toilet, instead she decided to pee in the sink. However when she sat on the sink, it pulled out of the wall,  and she fell off hitting her head on the towel rack and knocking herself unconscious.  On hearing a loud thump from above the family rushed upstairs to find the sink broken and girl passed out with her pants down.  [Collected on the Internet, 1999] There was this teenager. She was the daughter of a rich (if stuffy) couple and went to an exclusive private girls-only school. She was also head over heels in love with a particularly nice boy from one of the local  boys-only private schools. She would do anything to meet him, and was continually making up excuses or 'coincidences' so that she would run into him. Being a boy, he finally got the message after she almost threw herself at him. He invited her out. However, being himself from a stuffy family, their first 'date' was to dinner at his house with his parents. The girl was ecstatic, if nervous, and immediately set out to make sure that the night would be a success. She didn't eat for a week. She spent a huge amount on a new haircut and a makeover. She bought a new dress.  Finally, the night came. She went to the house and was introduced to the parents at the door. They made small talk. Things were going fine. Then, in  the middle of the main course, the girl needed to go to the toilet. Being on  her best behaviour, she asked for the bathroom. She was given directions, but when she got there, she only found a bath and a sink. Not wanting to appear foolish and go back to ask directions to the toilet, she decided to use the sink. Unfortunately, it was a little high and awkward to sit on, and half way though she slipped, broke the sink, and knocked herself unconscious. After half an hour, concerned about what had happened to her, that's where the entire family found her - unconscious, her knickers around her ankles, lying in a mess of water, urine and broken sink. Of course, when she came to, she was humiliated. The boy, however, thought it was the funniest thing in the world.  He visited her in hospital and asked her to come around again. At first she wouldn't but, when convinced that the family had forgiven her and that it would never be mentioned, she agreed. As with the first time, she spent a week preparing for the night. As with the first time, she was greeted by the parents at the door. Feeling slightly more nervous than the first time, the sat down on the nearest sofa - only to hear a hideous cracking sound. She quickly stood up, and discovered that she had just broken the back of the family's beloved chihuahua.   She never saw the boy again. Origins:  The legend of the social-climbing young lady and her fall from both grace and a bathroom sink dates to at least 1991. It's usually set in Britain, where one could possibly still find older homes in which the bathroom (or washroom) contained only a washstand and where one would therefore need to ask for the "water closet" if one expected to be directed to the toilet, or (as in the first example above) in a "rich person's home" where one might find a "vanity room" with only a sink.  (Neither explanation really applies to the second example above, in which the girl is clearly from the same area and social class as the boy she's dating.) This related version was told by novelist and biographer Andrew Sinclair: A friend of mine from Australia was asked to an elegant party in Eaton Square. Caviar was to be served after the champagne. Having drunk too much of that, my friend found his way to the bathroom. He groped around for a light switch, but did not discover it. He then groped around for a lavatory, but did not discover one. Finally, he found the edge of the bath and settled for that. He relieved himself slowly and fully, then turned on the taps to swill away the evidence. Going back to the party, he asked his hostess where the caviar might be. 'Packed on ice,' she said, 'in the bath. I am just going to get it.' He went instead, walking quickly back to Australia. As a legend, the "sink tinkle" shares a number of elements with the more common crushed dog tale in which an over-anxious guest manages to kill the family pooch by sitting on it. It's therefore no surprise to see the two combined into one story as they appear in the second example above. Crushed dog tales often include a lead-in of the guest having committed a prior faux pas, necessitating his return to the scene of the crime to tender an apology: crushed dog A young man, new in town, is invited to a party at an expensive home. He falls asleep after drinking heavily and awakens in a dark room. While fumbling for the light switch, he accidentally sticks his finger into an open ink well and leaves stains and fingerprints all over the room. Embarrassed by the damage he has done, the young man slips away unnoticed. The next day he decides to return and apologize. He was admitted by a servant, who led him to a dim library to await his host or hostess. He entered the library, and sank into the nearest comfortable chair, only to hear and feel a mind-boggling CRUNCH! The young man leapt to his feet to discover that he had crushed a delicate Chihuahua to death. He fled again, and never returned. A 1996 British version of the crushed dog tale also includes a lead-in involving a boorish guest and bathroom functions gone awry. In that telling, a lad staying over at a country home awakens in the middle of the night, overcome by the urgent need to defecate.  He locates a chamber pot in his room, does his business in it, and returns to bed, resolving to empty the pot first thing in the morning before anyone else is about. In the morning, after topping up the pot with the contents of a full bladder, he sets out to look for a toilet to dump this steaming stew into. Alas, none is to be found. Still a bit tipsy from the night before, our hero decides to empty the pot out a window and onto the flower beds below. Unfortunately, as he holds the pot out the window, the weight of everything in it causes its handle to snap off. The pot plummets down the side of the house, crashes through the glass conservatory roof below, smashing and splashing its contents over the main table where the other guests are seated for breakfast.  Be it spilled ink, a broken sink, or a crushed dog, at the heart of each of these tales lies an overriding commonality  the unforgivable social error committed by someone clearly out of his element. Stories such as these are our way of venting such fears, getting them out in the open where we can laugh at them, but at the same time confirming to ourselves how very much we dread some day becoming the one to break the sink or squash the dog. Only because the following story fits well enough with the theme of social embarrassment to permit me an excuse to slip it in here, I present the following letter to Miss Manners: Dear Miss Manners: This may sound silly, but I'm serious. When someone suffers a particularly embarrassing accident in front of you and many others, what is the socially appropriate response? My husband and I got into an argument about this. We recently visited Boston, and while we were there, we attended a large party where everyone was elegantly dressed. At the party, a lady in a low-cut gown tripped, stumbled, lurched across a table, falling face first into a bowl of guacamole dip, and in the process "popped out" of her top. After an initial stunned silence, practically everyone in the room burst out laughing, even though it was obvious that the lady was terribly embarrassed. Then the hostess rushed over to help her and ushered her upstairs. After we left the party, I criticized my husband for laughing and told him I thought it was very bad manners. But he said that it was not impolite for people to laugh at something like that as long as they meant no harm and didn't "overdo" it. I said it was inconsiderate of the person's feelings to laugh at all. He said it's the social custom. Could you settle the argument? Gentle Reader: What do you mean "something like that"? Miss Manners doubts that there is anything in the world like an elegantly dressed Bostonian lurching across the room and diving face first into a bowl of guacamole dip while simultaneously disengaging her bodice from her bosom. Therefore, Miss Manners has a wee bit of trouble preparing a general rule for dealing with this eventuality. Nor, if she were your husband, would she attempt to justify a reaction on grounds other than direct cause and effect. One might try to ignore a less spectacular accident. If, say, it were avocado dip, rather than guacamole, and the lady had merely trailed her sleeve in it, one could pretend not to have noticed. To pretend not to notice a performance such as you have described  even if it were humanly possible  would be to suggest that the lady did it all the time and her friends have gotten used to it. It is far better to comfort her later by telling stories of your own about hilariously embarrassing accidents you have survived. Doesn't a broken sink or a squashed dog now almost sound picayune in comparison? Barbara "social quirker" Mikkelson Sightings:  The "crushed dog" part of the legend shows up in Tom Robbin's 1980 novel Still Life with Woodpecker. Those looking for the "broken sink" part of the story will find that in an episode of television's The Single Guy (a short-lived sitcom aired in the U.S. from 1995-97). Last updated:  29 July 2013   Martin, Judith.  Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.  New York: Warner Books, 1983  ISBN 0-446-37763-5   (pp. 468-469).   Morley, Robert.  Robert Morley's Second Book of Bricks.  UK: Coronet Books, 1982  (p. 75).   Samon, Katherine Ann.  Dates from Hell.  New York: Plume, 1992  (pp. ix-xiii).   Scott, Bill.  Pelicans & Chihuahuas and Other Urban Legends.  St. Lucia, Queensland: Univ. of Queensland Press, 1996.  ISBN 0-7022-2774-9  (p. 157). A popular meme circulating since 2011 via the Internet quotes nonagenarian comic actress Betty White thusly:  But while the observation has much of the cadence, attitude and wit that have made White so beloved by American audiences over the years, she never uttered those words and made no bones about it when they were recited to her by a writer for The Guardian: "That's what I hate about Facebook and the internet. They can say you said anything. I never would have said that. I'd never say that in a million years." The Guardian So, who did say it? Partial credit goes to New York standup comedian Sheng Wang, who delivered a lengthier version of the joke on the 28 January 2011 episode of Comedy Central Presents: Sheng Wang Comedy Central Presents A friend said to me, "Hey you need to grow a pair. Grow a pair, Bro." It's when someone calls you weak, but they associate it with a lack of testicles. Which is weird, because testicles are the most sensitive things in the world. If you suddenly just grew a pair, you'd be a lot more vulnerable. If you want to be tough, you should lose a pair. If you want to be real tough, you should grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding. And it appears that Wang's routine borrowed heavily from a bit by comedian Hal Sparks, "Pussy Is Tougher," which aired on Showtime in 2010. Pussy Is Tougher Cragg, Michael."Betty White: TV's Golden Girl on 63 Years in Show Business."
The Guardian.9 November 2012. On Jan. 6, 2020, amidst escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, U.S. Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Az., tweeted a picture of former President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, along with the caption "The world is a better place without these guys in power": airstrike  However, Obama and Rouhani never met face-to-face during the former's term of office, and the image of the two men tweeted by Gosar was a fake created by altering a 2011 photograph of Obama's meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss nuclear-liability laws: Manmohan Singh  Moreover, Gosar's critical caption for the fake photo ("The world is a better place without these guys in power") was inaccurate, as Rouhani is still very much in power as Iran's president. Rouhani After the picture of Obama and Rouhani was identified as a fake, Gosar then criticized the "dim witted reporters" who pointed it out and attempted to claim that the false and misleading aspects of his tweet were irrelevant:   Reuters. "'Never Threaten the Iranian Nation,' Rouhani Tells Trump."
  The New York Times.  6 January 2020. Wright, Tom.  "Indian, U.S. Leaders Meet on Nuclear Law."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 November 2011. In the opening skirmish of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton cast her rival as a man who put his own business interests ahead of the welfare of average Americans. Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis, Clinton said. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money. What does the record show? We found many examples from 2006 to 2009 when Donald Trump spoke of the great opportunity that came with falling real estate prices. One of the earliest instances was in a Trump audiobook from 2006. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position  which I'm in a good cash position today  then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Now that was before the collapse that led to the Great Recession, and arguably, Trump was simply offering sound business guidance. Trump touted the same view acoupleof times in2007. But at that point, the country still was not looking at an economic catastrophe. The situation was quite different by early 2009. The investment house Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in U.S. history. The Dow had suffered its worst weekly loss ever. Washington had bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Foreclosures were rising weekly. Trump was on CNNFeb. 17, 2009, talking about the economy with host Wolf Blitzer and said the moment was a great opportunity. Blitzer asked Trump why. If you get something really prime, really good, eventually it's going to be worth a lot more than you paid, Trump explained. I used to tell people two years ago, don't buy real estate and I used to preach it hard. And now I'm saying, I think that this is a good time. Whether you hit the exact market or not, I can't tell you. But I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy. To be clear, Trump was speaking as an investor. He was not necessarily rooting for the housing crisis. But it was under way as he spoke. We reached out to the Trump campaign and did not receive any information to add to this picture. Our ruling Clinton said Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of Americans, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities the overall situation created for an investor such as himself. Clintons statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trumps words. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/22c6df0a-1ffe-421d-b06a-b6c208a27038 With national attention focused on a showdown in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to reduce state worker benefits, the issue led to some spirited back-and-forth between union-backer Donna Brazile and conservative columnist George Will during the round-table discussion on ABC'sThis Week.Brazile called the workers who have flooded the state capitol to back union workers an organic movement.Just like the Tea Party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, 'No more,' no more budget cuts on the back of working people. Brazile said.Will responded, Donna, what you call the grassroots is a tiny minority of this tiny minority of Wisconsin people who work for the government. Three hundred thousand public employees in Wisconsin went to work -- while the teachers were clutching their little signs that say it's all about the kids, they're abandoning their classrooms, lying to their supervisors, saying they were sick, and going off to protest in defense of perquisites, which if the governor cuts them as much as he plans to do, would still leave them better off than their private sector counterparts.We decided to check Will's claim that perks or non-wage compensation such as health and retirement benefits) -- if cut as much as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has proposed -- would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector.Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of their pension contributions and to double their share of health premiums to 12.6 percent.Our colleagues at PolitiFact Wisconsin have been all over many of the issues in this contentious debate, and back on Feb. 8, they fact-checked a claim Gov. Walker made in his firststate of the stateaddress,that most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums, and it would still be half the national average.Here's some of what our friends at PolitiFact Wisconsin found:* AKaiser FamilyFoundationstudy that concluded that employees nationally -- public and private -- pay an average of 29 percent of the cost of the premiums. Among just state and government workers nationwide, the average was 25 percent for family coverage. * A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics2010 health care benefitssurveythat put the employee share at 32 percent for family coverage. Its 21 percent for single coverage. * Astudy by The Segal Co., a private benefits firm, that looked just at state government workers and found that a majority pay between 20 percent and 60 percent of their premium costs for family coverage.In other words, no matter how you slice it, the 12.6 percent share of health care premiums that Walker proposes employees pay is well below what most pay in the private--and public--sectors.That gets us halfway there. The second piece is pensions. Again, Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of pension contributions. This one is a little more difficult to compare. Most public employees have a pension plan. But fewer than one in five private-sector employees has access to a pension plan. And those who do typically don't contribute anything to it. Much more often, private employees have access to employer-sponsored retirement benefits (such as 401(k) plans), rather than pensions. And a third of the private sector workforce has no access to an employer sponsored retirement plan at all.The 401(k) has become the de facto retirement benefit in the private sector, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.Typically, Brainard said, employers will match about 3 percent to 5 percent of an employee's salary. Employeesmaycontribute to their 401(k), but they aren'trequiredto contribute.So Wisconsin public employees may berequiredto contribute more to the their retirement plan than those in the private sector, but that doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage compared to the private sector. In fact, experts say theywillbe better off.According to a survey prepared by Brainard in October 2009, The retirement security of working Americans presently appears shaky outside the public sector, due not only to the nations heavy use of a retirement plan model that has been found to be undependable in its ability to provide reliable retirement income, but also due to low relative rates of participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. Conversely, For most states and local governments, retirement security of retired workers is a policy that is being achieved.As always, Brainard said, there are exceptions, such as for those government employees who don't work long enough to become vested in a pension.But Will's comment, as it relates to pension is largely accurate, Brainard said. Overall, the retirement plan typically provided to Wisconsin public employees --whether or not they are contributing 5.8 percent -- provides a larger retirement benefit than private sector employees get.We'd like to cite one more survey, one by theWisconsin Legislative Councilwhich found that even among major public employee retirement systems, most required employee contributions of more than 5 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for government workers with a required plan contribution, the average contribution is 6.3 percent of earnings. So Walker's proposal is in line with the norm for government workers.Now, we'd like to drop one big disclaimer into this whole analysis. Many experts contend that while state workers get better benefits, they get paid less than folks in the private sector. PolitiFact Wisconsin took a closer look at that issuehere. The point is that it's important to consider an employee's total package of wages and benefits when comparing public and private sector compensation. But that's not the issue before us here. Will clearly stated that he was talking about just the benefits side of the equation. And with regard to the changes Walker has proposed -- requiring greater employee contributions to pension and health care -- Will is right that they would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector. We rate Will's comment True. Claim:  The actor who portrayed the "Marlboro Man" in print and television cigarette advertisements died of lung cancer.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] I heard that the actor who was the Marlboro Man in TV commercials died of lung cancer from smoking.  Is that true?   Origins:  When a prominent study was released in the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer, it presented Philip Morris, the manufacturer of the Marlboro brand of cigarettes, with a dilemma: many consumers were concerned enough about the health issues associated with smoking to want to switch to filtered cigarettes (which were perceived as safer), but many men viewed filtered cigarettes  and the Marlboro brand in particular, which had originally been marketed as a woman's product, advertised as being mild and ladylike and featuring a red band around one end to disguise lipstick stains  as too feminine.  Philip Morris' response to this issue was to reposition Marlboro as a men's cigarette promoted via advertisements featuring strong masculine figures; the rugged 'Marlboro Man' cowboy became one of the most prominent advertising icons of the mid-twentieth century, propelling Marlboro from a niche brand to the world's best-selling cigarette. The visibility of the Marlboro Man as an icon has diminished greatly in the U.S. since its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, however, as increasing evidence linking cigarette smoking to a variety of medical ailments has caused the prevalence of smoking to decline and prompted the passage of restrictions limiting the media in which cigarettes could be advertised. Many anti-smoking advocates  have since cited claims that "the Marlboro Man died of lung cancer" as an apt irony highlighting the dangers of smoking, a literal death foreshadowing the eventual demise of the product the Marlboro Man helped prompted to many millions of consumers. Any claim about "the" Marlboro Man is somewhat indefinite, though, as many different men have portrayed the rugged-looking cowboys featured in Marlboro cigarette advertisements since 1954. An Oklahoma native named Darrell Winfield (who passed away in January 2015) was the main Marlboro Man from the mid-1970s onwards; but dozens of other men (many of them "real" cowboys) have also modeled for television commercials, magazine and newspaper advertisements, billboards, and other advertising materials promoting Marlboro brand of cigarettes over the last sixty years. A few of those men, all long-time smokers, have died of diseases of the lungs (although most of them lived at least as long as the average life expectancy of their time):  Model David Millar, one of the original Marlboro Men who appeared in television commercials for the cigarette brand in the 1950s, died of emphysema at the age of 81 in 1987:   [Neighbor Stephen] Taylor said Millar smoked, but had quit about 20 years ago. He also quit horses after his early stints with Marlboro. "They used to boost him up by a rope and put him down on the horse because he didn't like horses," said Charles Dudley, a longtime friend. Dudley added that Millar often said he was "the only Marlboro Man who doesn't smoke, drink or like horses." Although Millar had quit [smoking] about 1965, he had smoked for "probably 40 to 45 years" before that, Dudley said. After Millar, Marlboro gravitated toward more authentic cowboys. Born in St. Louis, Millar worked as an advertising executive in magazine publishing and modeled for fashion magazines, his wife, Maria, said. In New Hampshire, where he had lived since retiring in 1961, he was an avid outdoorsman and active in civic and community affairs.  Wayne McLaren, who posed for some promotional photographs on behalf of Marlboro in 1976, succumbed to lung cancer at age 51 on 22 July 1992. McLaren was a former professional rodeo rider who appeared in small parts in various television series and movies (primarily Westerns) throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and he modeled for print advertising between acting jobs in the mid-1970s, including a Marlboro campaign in 1976. McLaren, who had a pack-and-a-half a day smoking habit, was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 49. Despite chemotherapy, the removal of one lung, and radiation treatments, the cancer eventually spread to his brain and killed him. After learning he had cancer, McLaren embarked on an anti-smoking campaign that included the production of a commercial described as follows: Wayne McLaren In the powerful TV spot, images of the handsome young Wayne McLaren in a Stetson hat are juxtaposed with shots of his withered form in a hospital bed just prior to his death. His brother, Charles, provides the voiceover and chides tobacco companies for promoting an 'independent' lifestyle and asks, 'Lying there with all those tubes in you, how independent can you really be?' In the last months of his life McLaren appeared before the Massachusetts legislature when it was considering a bill to add taxes to cigarettes to pay for health education and also spoke at the annual Philip Morris stockholders' meeting to support a resolution that the company limit its advertising. Philip Morris initially denied that McLaren had ever appeared in Marlboro advertising, but a company spokesperson later conceded that McLaren's image had been used in a retail display for Marlboro Texan Poker Cards. (The woman McLaren lived with for the last eight years of his life also produced a Marlboro magazine advertisement which she claimed pictured McLaren.) David McLean, who appeared in many Marlboro television and print advertisements starting in the early 1960s, also died of cancer at age 73 on 12 October 1995. McLean starred in the short-lived 1960 television Western Tate, and he played roles in numerous television series and feature films during the 1960s and 1970s. McLean took up smoking at age 12, began to suffer from emphysema in 1985, and had a cancerous tumor removed from his right lung in 1993. David McLean Despite the surgery, the cancer remained and spread to his brain and spine, and McLean succumbed to it in 1995. In August 1996 McLean's widow and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Philip Morris, Inc., claiming that McLean was unable to stop smoking because of his nicotine addiction, and that his smoking habit was the cause of his lung cancer. (The lawsuit contended, among other issues, that McLean had been obligated to smoke up to five packs per take in order to get the right look while posing for advertisements, and that he received cartons of Marlboro cigarettes as gifts from Philip Morris.) At last report (in 1999) the lawsuit was still pending, having outlasted all attempts by defendant Philip Morris to have it dismissed.  In 2014, Eric Lawson, another television actor who appeared in Marlboro advertisements between 1978 to 1981, died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at the age of 72. Like Wayne McLaren, Lawson was also a habitual smoker from an early age who in later life publicized the dangers of smoking and contributed to the production of an anti-smoking commercial: Eric Lawson A smoker since age 14, Lawson later appeared in an anti-smoking commercial that parodied the Marlboro man and an "Entertainment Tonight" segment to discuss the negative effects of smoking. Susan [Lawson] said her husband was proud of the interview, even though he was smoking at the time and continued the habit until he was diagnosed with COPD. "He knew the cigarettes had a hold on him," she said. "He knew, yet he still couldn't stop." Although diseases such as lung cancer and COPD are strongly linked to cigarette smoking, it is not possible to definitively determine that any particular instance of such a disease was caused by smoking.   Last updated:  15 January 2015