Did Biden, Ossoff, and Warnock Mislead Public With Promise of '$2000 Checks'?
fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late December and early January 2021, increasing COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person became a major issue in the Georgia Senate run-off elections. The campaign pitch, made in some form by Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and Joe Biden leading up to that Jan. 5, 2021 election, was that a blue (Democrat-controlled) U.S. Senate would ensure passage of those $2,000 checks. On Jan. 20, Biden unveiled his $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus plan. It proposed issuing $1,400 checks to each person. Some have interpreted the $1,400 as a broken promise, despite the fact that the goal, since December, had always been to achieve a total per person payment of $2,000. The $600 checks already approved by Congress began disbursement starting on Dec. 29, 2020. Here, Snopes takes a granular look at the issue. 1.9 trillion proposed On Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump shocked congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle by threatening to block passage of a third COVID-19 stimulus package that had been negotiated for months and that his administration played a crucial role in shaping. The problem, Trump stated in a video Tweeted out that night, was that the $600 per person cap was not enough. "I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple," he said. shocked video In a confusing moment of limited bipartisanship, Democratic members of Congress agreed with Trump and launched a last-minute campaign to amend the relief bill to include the $2,000 checks requested by Trump. Congressional Republicans, for the most part, opposed the increase. An attempt to raise the amount, pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, to the level Trump had requested failed on Dec. 24. Ultimately, Trump signed the originally negotiated bill  which included the $600 per person cap  on Dec. 27.  failed signed In response, on Dec. 28, Democrats in the House passed a stand-alone bill designed to make Trump's vision of $2,000 per person a reality. The text of the bill proposed, in part, to amend the portion of the recently passed relief package "by striking '$600' each place it appears and inserting '$2,000', and by striking '$1,200' each place it appears and inserting '$4,000.' The move was described by The Associated Press at the time as "all but dar[ing] Republicans to break with Trump." text was described That "dare" came at a complicated political moment. The two run-off elections for Georgia would determine the balance of power in the Senate. Both Ossoff and Warnock capitalized on the moment, immediately pushing both their GOP rivals in Georgia to support the House bill upping the payment to $2,000. capitalized On Dec. 28, the same day that the House passed its proposed increase to COVID relief checks, Warnock tweeted that, "Georgians could have gotten $2,000 relief checks. You're only getting $600  because [opponent Kelly Loeffler] refused to fight for more." That same day, Ossoff tweeted that his opponent "David Perdue didnt even want the first round of stimulus checks." On election day, Ossoff's final pitch to voters included the statement, "We will be able to pass $2,000 stimulus checks for the people next week." tweeted tweeted https://streamable.com/tehygd President-elect Biden had made the same general point a day earlier at a rally for Ossoff and Warnock. "By electing Jon and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives," Biden said on Jan. 4, "because their election will put an end to the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check. That money that will go out the door immediately." https://streamable.com/jckvga On Jan. 20, Biden revealed his COVID relief plan in an executive order calling for additional payments of $1,400 per person. This led some to interpret Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff's pre-election discussion as a disingenuous bait-and-switch, promising a certain amount of money for votes and then refusing to deliver on that promise. "$2,000 means $2,000," Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post following the release of the plan, "$2,000 does not mean $1,400." Other critics accused Biden and Ossoff of "purchasing" peoples' votes and then refusing to "pay up." told Those arguing that Biden et al. broke a political promise by proposing $1,400 checks on top of the already approved $600 ones misrepresent the political debate surrounding COVID-19 relief efforts. Until the "broken promise" talking point emerged, the two political "camps" were the $600 advocates (most congressional Republicans) and the $2,000 advocates (Trump and most congressional Democrats). At no point was there ever a "$2,600 camp." Before the end of December, it appeared logistically possible to modify the amount of money mandated in the previous COVID-relief package through that House bill passed on Dec. 28. According to reporting in The New York Times, however, the Treasury Department "started making direct deposit payments" on Dec. 29, and started mailing checks the next day. reporting Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested Biden's plan did not fulfill the campaign promise of $2,000 checks, explicitly advocated the same solution on Dec. 23, proposing an amendment that would increase payments in the Trump package by $1,400 per person: same solution   Looking back at the statements made by Biden and others, references to "$2,000 checks" must be to these legislative efforts  including those advocated for and voted on by Ocasio-Cortez. Because the Senate cannot "block" legislation that has not yet been proposed, Biden's reference to "the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check" clearly refers to the Senate's unwillingness to take up the House amendment upping the $600 checks to $2,000. reference The end result of the solution Ocasio-Cortez, Biden, Ossoff and Warnock proposed or advocated for in late December would have been a total of $2,000 per person. The end result of the Biden package, if passed, would be a total of $2,000 per person. Indeed, the claim that any politician was arguing for a total of $2,600 per person in late December is completely untenable, and belied by Ocasio-Cortez's support for the $2,000 solutions advocated for by herself and other Democrats at that time. The central issue is this: As the debate about the inadequacy of $600 checks versus $2,000 checks was raging in Congress, the $600 plan had already become law. Money was already being dispersed. To achieve the total of $2,000 advocated for by Trump and Democrats in late December, an additional payment of $1,400 passed through new legislation would be required. Biden's plan, the specifics of which are currently being worked through in the House at the time of this reporting, would achieve that same end result. currently There is a plausible argument, however, that Biden and Ossoff over-promised regarding the rapidity with which a Biden administration and a blue Senate could bring about rapid disbursement of these funds. As the House has yet to approve the legislative package proposed by Biden, the money did not "go out the door immediately," as Biden promised on Jan 4. Nor would that legislative package be passed, as Ossoff claimed it would, "the next week" after his election. The first $600 payments already approved have yet to reach many Americans. many In late December 2020, Democrats united with Trump to push Congressional Republicans to increase COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person. The universal call by those on the Left, at the time, was for a total of $2,000 per person. Ultimately, the $600 plan passed while the viability of $2,000 payments was still gaining traction. References to "$2,000 checks" made in January by Biden and by Georgia's Democratic Senate candidates were to increase existing payments up to $2,000  not to issue a new check for $2,000 in addition to the amount already approved. Because Biden and Ossoff's statements are consistent with the package Democrats ultimately proposed, but because their timeline for getting those payments out the door was too optimistic, we rank the claim that Biden's proposed $1,400 checks are a broken promise as "false."
In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE  Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.  You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers   Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica.  "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral."   The Daily Dot.  30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence.  "Fascism Anyone?"   Free Inquiry.  31 March 2003. The Right Stuff.  "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular."   22 January 2014. On Nov. 29, 2020, a Facebook page purporting to represent Costco, a chain of membership-only warehouse stores, posted a message offering a free grocery box to anyone who shared and commented on their post. The message was purportedly written by Costco's CEO Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo): message My name is Craig Jelinekand I'm the CEO of Costco Inc. To celebrate our 35th Birthday, Every single person who shaes and comments in the next 24hrs will get one of these Christmas Food Box delivered straight to their door on Monday 30th November. Each Food box contains groceries worth of $250 and a $35 Costco voucher. Make sure you validate your entry. Limit 1 Food box per person.   This message was not posted on Costco's official page and it was not written by the company's CEO. This is a scam that was shared by an imposter Facebook page. A nearly identical version of this scam (with Aldi swapped in for Costco) was also shared on social media in November 2020.  Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message to Facebook alerting their customers about the scam: Facebook Hey ALDI fans! Looks like another Facebook scam is making its way around. We can confirm it is a scam and the page has no affiliation with ALDI. We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused!We have been working with Facebook since yesterday to get the page taken down, but we'd love your help! Please share this post to help us spread the word and always be sure to look for the blue check mark by our name for authenticity! One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not.  Costco   Social media users could have also clicked the "Page Transparency" button on Facebook to unearth some more details about this fake page. In this case, the page transparency button reveals that the scam "Costco US" page was created on Nov. 29, the same day that this "free grocery box" scam started to circulate. It would be unusual, to say the least, for Costco to start an entirely new page (one that its shoppers do not know about) in order to host a giveaway.    A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not on the up-and-up. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally show boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image (below) shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo in order to make it seem like the store was truly giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image: several years old similar scam   The best way to tell that this offer is a scam, however, is to ask yourself a simple question: Does it seem too good to be true?  This type of scam is commonplace on social media. A fraudulent page (in this case a fake Costco page) posts an especially appealing offer (free grocery boxes) and then asks social media users to like, share, or comment on the post. This ensures that the scam message will spread to as many people as possible, which gives the fraudsters a better chance of success. "Success," in this case, is people being tricked into parting with personal information, such as email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers An image supposedly showing a large moon sitting perfectly in the middle of a stone arch formation is frequently circulated on social media under the title "The Eye of the Moon in Utah."  The Eye of the Moon in Utah     This isn't a genuine photograph, in the sense that this scene was not visible with the naked eye. However, this isn't a digitally altered image, either. The original picture was taken by photographer Zach Cooley by using an in-camera double exposure technique. In short, Cooley snapped a photograph, then snapped a second photograph, and layered the images on top of one another. (By labeling it "Misleading," we don't mean to accuse Cooley of misrepresentation. Rather, it's to point out that in many cases the image has been shared on social media with no explanation of how it was constructed.) Zach Cooley Masterclass explains: explains Double exposure photography is a technique that layers two different exposures on a single image, combining two photographs into one. Double exposure creates a surreal feeling for your photos and the two photographs can work together to convey deep meaning or symbolism. A similar technique, called a multiple exposure, is when you combine more than two exposures in a single image Cooley provided some of the technical details behind this image in their Instagram post. They wrote that they traveled to Utah in October as the moon was aligning with this arch, that they used an in-camera double exposure to create this image, and that the two images used were taken about a minute apart. Compared to what was seen with the naked eye, the moon is enlarged and centered. Instagram post Here's the original Instagram post:   Cooley writes: Happy Halloween weekend! I planned an entire vacation mostly around the fact that the moonrise would align with this arch and I could get something resembling a spooky eye on the week of Halloween. Over two nights I got some single shots and double exposures, I thought this one was best for the eye look, what do you think? Can't wait to share more with you all!In-camera double exposureMoon: ?550mm?F/9?1/160sec.?ISO 160Arch: ?250mm?F/9?1/5 sec.?ISO 160 Notes: Photos taken about a minute apart and moon was enlarged and repositioned in the process.  While the "Eye of the Moon in Utah" photograph gives a slightly distorted view of what you would see if you were standing next to the photographer, it isn't that far off from reality. Here's a single-exposure photograph from Cooley that shows a very similar scene:    Cooley elaborated on this in-camera double exposure technique in another Instagram post that showed a large moon over Phoenix, Arizona, writing: Double exposure effects are often achieved in Photoshop or a similar program by importing and manipulating 2 different photos. However, many digital cameras today allow you to merge multiple photos at the time you take them, but of course with none of the flexibility you get with editing software. For this image for example, I captured the city in one shot, then zoomed in and positioned the moon where I wanted it to overlay, and when I snapped that second photo the camera merged it with the first since it was in double exposure mode. Zooming in for the moon photo makes it appear larger in comparison to the city than it did in real life (4X larger in this case). This all may sound easy, but a lot of things have to be just right for this to work out.Ive mentioned this before, but to be clear, I have zero issues with Photoshop - its a pretty cool tool that opens doors to infinite creativity, among other things. I'm personally just in a place where I have yet to learn how to do things like this in Photoshop, and I'm enjoying trying different things with my camera. Ive been hesitant to post this, probably most of all because I take pride in a lot of single exposure moon photos Ive taken, and I fear mixing in images like this could lead people to believe those single exposures are more of the same. Like Ive said though, I will always specify in the caption. At the end of the day, Im proud of this image too and happy to share creative work without walls, even if its not purist photography. Im definitely wanting feedback on all this, from photographers and not photographers alike, so please let me know what you think! And thanks for reading my book. ?? Here's the moon over Phoenix image: A few weeks before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, a meme began to circulate on social media suggesting the 1956 Republican platform included policies that would more closely match those of progressives in later years: meme  The tenets listed in the 1956 Republican platform graphic certainly deviate from many of the GOP's current party lines, but were the following cited planks notably different six decades ago? It's difficult to make a direct comparison for a few reasons. One is that the Republican Party's national platform is not necessarily the same as the issues espoused by individual candidates at the federal, state, or local levels. In recent years, the advent of social media has enabled candidates and political organizations to push individually important agendas that may not hew to the party's overall national platform. Another issue is defining what the party's platform is at any given time. The most recent available Republican Party platform dated to 2012, during the campaign of Mitt Romney. Not all issues addressed in the graphic above were directly mentioned or comparably referenced in the 2012 platform, and individual Republican Party members who have made statements about platform issues since then do not necessarily speak for the GOP at large. The image displayed above first points to assistance for "low-income communities," language that does not specifically appear in the 1956 Republican platform. Under the heading of "Labor," the original document supported (to a degree) several of the positions summarized in the graphic in respect to minimum wage laws, unemployment assistance, and equal pay irrespective of gender: platform The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers; Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers; Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system; Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits; Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex; Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts; Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable; Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex; Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment. The quoted portion did not specify expanded access to unemployment insurance benefits. However, the introduction addressed matters of expanding that benefit, as well as Social Security and even health care. The word "Protect" did not appear in that bit, but it did state: We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs  expansion of social security  broadened coverage in unemployment insurance  improved housing  and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system. On the matter of supporting and encouraging labor unions, the 1956 Republican platform stated that "workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform ... workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions." It pledged to: Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations. By contrast, the 2012 Republican Party platform said of workers, unemployment insurance, and worker protections that: platform The best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. We want much more than that. We want a roaring job market to match a roaring economy. Instead, what this Administration has given us is 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent, the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all.In all the sections that follow, as well as elsewhere in this platform, we explain what must be done to achieve that goal. The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-State-private partnership must invest in the nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. Unions were also addressed in the 2012 platform in a somewhat different manner: We will restore the rule of law to labor law by blocking "card check," enacting the Secret Ballot Protection Act, enforcing the Hobbs Act against labor violence, and passing the Raise Act to allow all workers to receive well-earned raises without the approval of their union representative. We demand an end to the Project Labor Agreements; and we call for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which costs the taxpayers billions of dollars annually in artificially high wages on government projects. We support the right of States to enact Right-to-Work laws and encourage them to do so to promote greater economic liberty. Ultimately, we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law to promote worker freedom and to promote greater economic liberty. We will aggressively enforce the recent decision by the Supreme Court barring the use of union dues for political purposes without the consent of the worker. Republicans in 1956 appeared markedly softer on matters of immigration and asylum, as their platform explained: The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice. We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support. In 2012, the GOP platform was slightly more stringent: We recognize that for most of those seeking entry into this country, the lack of respect for the rule of law in their homelands has meant economic exploitation and political oppression by corrupt elites. In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. We support the mandatory use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (S.A.V.E.) program  an internet-based system that verifies the lawful presence of applicants  prior to the granting of any State or federal government entitlements or IRS refunds. We insist upon enforcement at the workplace through verification systems so that jobs can be available to all legal workers. Use of the E-verify program  an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees  must be made mandatory nationwide. State enforcement efforts in the workplace must be welcomed, not attacked. When Americans need jobs, it is absolutely essential that we protect them from illegal labor in the workplace. In addition, it is why we demand tough penalties for those who practice identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings. It is why we support Republican legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security long-term detention authority to keep dangerous but undeportable aliens off our streets, expedite expulsion of criminal aliens, and make gang membership a deportable offense. Social Security warranted a few mentions in the 2012 platform, most notably in this portion: For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today's taxpayers - and future generations - face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made log-jam - the so-called stalemate in Washington - particularly affects the government's three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Among the remaining points of the graphic, gender pay discrepancy was not directly referenced in the 2012 platform. While the two platforms from 1956 and 2012 may appear starkly different when compared side-by-side, one must also keep in mind that the Republican Party tenets referenced in this meme predate many of the issues American voters now feel are central to their lives 60 years on. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. 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 Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In January 2022, an image circulated online allegedly alerting Caucasian customers of the fast food chain McDonald's that they would be required to pay an additional fee:   "As an insurance measure, due in part to the recent coup attempt of the Capital (sic) earlier this year, all Caucasian customers are required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction." McDonald's has no such policy, but the image appears to be a variation of a similar internet post. In 2012, a similar image with similar wording circulated online claiming that McDonald's was instituting an additional $1.50 fee on Black customers. claiming Mikkelson, David. "FACT CHECK: Did a McDonalds Impose a Surcharge on African-American Customers to Cover Robbery Insurance? Snopes, 24 Jan. 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/self-insured/. Central Health, the government agency entrusted with improving health care access across Travis County, has a low tax rate that will remain low if voters ratify Proposition 1 on the November 2012ballot, a proponent says.Mark Nathan of theKeep Austin HealthyPAC said recently: Our health care districts tax rate is the lowest among the largest counties in Texas, and it will continue to be the lowest if the proposal wins approval. His comment appeared in anAustin American-Statesmannews article posted online the same day, Oct. 18, 2012.Central Health, the county health-care district created in 2004, seeks to increase its tax rate from 7.89 cents per $100 of assessed value to 12.9 cents for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013. Resulting revenue would help support health-care initiatives including a new medical school plus a site for a new teaching hospital.We wondered about the districts current and possible future tax rates.In 2005, the first year the district collected property taxes, Central Healths governing  board set a tax rate of 7.79 cents per $100 of assessed property value, which cost the average taxpayer $126.84, according to a July 31, 2012,Statesmannews story. Between 2005 and 2011, the average tax bill for Central Health rose $29.77 to the current $156.61 on the average-valued home in Travis County, counting exemptions--an increase of 23.5 percent, the story says.Generally, according to the story, Central Healths finances were helped over the years by unexpected windfalls in federal payments, a robust real estate market that pumped up property tax collections and a deal the City of Austin cut with the Seton Healthcare Family years before voters created the district, allowing the district to steadily expand services while setting relatively modest tax rates.By phone, district spokeswoman Christie Garbe told us the districts low tax rate is an artifact of how the district was born, reflecting the merger of separate rates previously levied for health care by the City of Austin and Travis County. Garbe said by email that after the change, residents outside the city experienced a significant rate increase while city residents saw a slight decrease.Another fiscally relevant distinction: Unlike hospital districts in Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant and El Paso counties, the JulyStatesmanstory says, Central Health does not run a hospital, so it can function with a lower tax rate. The Seton Healthcare Family operates the safety-net University Medical Center Brackenridge and bears most of the financial responsibility for it, the story says, which has helped Central Health set property tax rates 60 to 74 percent lower than other urban Texas hospital districts.At our inquiry, Nathan emailed us a chart, attributed to Central Health, indicating that its tax rate trails those of hospital districts in the urban counties noted in the JulyStatesmanarticle plus Nueces County. All things staying equal, the other districts rates would also outpace the Central Health rate if Proposition 1 passes, according to the chart. Garbe told us by email that the chart reflects April 2012 research by Central Health.According to the chart, the Nueces County district has the next-lowest rate, 16.24 cents per $100 valuation. That's more than double Central Healths rate.Via telephone interviews and web research, we confirmed the proclaimed rates, but found one rate getting cut. Mike Norby of the Harris County Hospital District, also known as the Harris Health System, said by phone that the countys commissioners court voted to reduce the districts tax rate by a penny to 18.22 cents per $100 valuation, effectively cutting the districts revenue by $10 million once all factors are considered. (He said the vote to do so occurred Oct. 23, 2012, which was after Nathan made his claim. )So, Central Health has the lowest rate among seven urban Texas hospital districts and would still have the lowest rate if the proposition passes, presuming other districts do not slash rates in the meantime.At the recommendation of Jonny Hipp, ceo of the Nueces County district, we queried Austin consultant Shari Holland, who told us she has written reports in the past comparing Texas hospital districts; report purchasers have included Central Health, she said.Holland agreed that Central Health has and will likely have a lower tax rate than the other cited districts, due in part, she said, to the Austin areas high property values. In 2008, she said, Travis County had assessed property values of $97,100 per resident, tops among the 10 most populous counties.Curious about the possible effect of higher property values, we asked Nathan how much tax revenue each of the cited health districts raises per resident.Central Health has ranked last among the seven districts in total tax revenues per resident, at $71, according to another Central Health chart emailed to us by Nathan. However, its per-resident revenue would escalate to $115 if the proposition passes. The district could then be collecting more per resident than the districts in Nueces and El Paso counties, which  have per-person tax revenues of $91 and $86, respectively, according to Central Health. The other analyzed health districts still would generate more tax revenue per resident, the districts research suggests.By email, Nathan pointed out he did not say Central Healths per-resident tax collections would stay the lowest.Our rulingNathan, the PAC spokesman, said Central Health has the lowest tax rate among districts in the largest Texas counties and will retain that distinction if the proposition passes. Thats correct, presuming other districts dont slash rates.Still, Central Healths per-person tax levy is projected to outpace those of two other districts should Travis County voters approve the bump. This information was missing from the spokesman's statement. Tax rates alone make the comparison incomplete..We rate the claim as Mostly True. On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. On April 12, 2022, a video went viral on social media that supposedly showed bird poop falling onto U.S. President Joe Biden's shoulder as he was speaking at an event in Iowa. We examined that video and photographs from the event, and collected statements from White House officials and journalists.  Here's what we learned: What landed on Biden's lapel was more likely a corn byproduct than bird poop.  Biden was talking about the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to issue a waiver to allow for the production of E15 (a mixture of gasoline and ethanol) in an effort to lower gas prices, when something wispy and white fell on his left shoulder. A video of the incident quickly went viral on Twitter as many users assumed that a bird had pooped on the president: issue a waiver  But was that really bird poop? Here's what we've been able to find out.  Biden was speaking at POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant in Menlo, Iowa. We have not been able to determine the specific facility in which Biden was speaking, but it's important to note that this was an indoor event (see photo below). POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant Furthermore, Biden was standing directly beside a giant pile of processed corn. In fact, photographs from the event show that corn was actively falling on this pile during Biden's speech:   The above-displayed photograph, taken by Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images, was captioned: "A mound of processed corn is seen in the background as US President Joe Biden announces steps to ease rising consumer prices at POET Bioprocessing in Menlo, Iowa on April 12, 2022." Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images Clay Masters, a reporter with Iowa Public Radio, captured additional photos of the scene before Biden's speech.   It certainly seems plausible that what fell onto Biden was a piece of some sort of corn byproduct and not bird poop.  Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was at the event and told AGWired.com, an agriculture news site, that it was definitely distillers dried grain with solubles or DDGS that fell on Biden's lapel. AG Wired reported: "Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was an eyewitness in the distillers grains barn with President Biden and he confirmed it was definitely DDGS responsible for spotting the POTUS lapel. "We did see something falling from the ceiling and it landed right there on his lapel and I can confirm it was not a bird dropping," said Cooper, who took this photo at the event which shows the mound of DDGS off to Biden's left side and the spot on his jacket. It came just as President Biden started to talk about products made in America and the amount of corn used at the Menlo, Iowa POET plant." Shortly after this video went viral, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield posted a message on Twitter stating that it was corn, not bird poop, that fell on Biden's shoulder.  posted a message   Bedingfield said: "If you guys knew your way around a corn silo at all, you'd know it was corn." Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent, came to the same conclusion, writing: "It was bits of corn flying around from the corn silo; the event was indoors." Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported that Biden's jacket was blemished by what he called "distillers grain," not bird poop.  Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported But it wasn't a "feathered fiend" relieving itself as characterized by the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. While there were birds in the "giant barn" where Biden spoke, according to a Des Moines Register photographer who was in the event in Menlo, Iowa, the substance that stained Biden's jacket was in fact distillers grain. Distillers grain is "a co-product of the ethanol production process," according to the Iowa Iowa Corn Growers Association. The grain was piled 20 feet high at the site of Biden's speech. We examined photographs from Reuters, The Associated Press, and Getty Images to get a closer look at this corn/bird poop. Upon closer examination, the "bird poop" appears to be somewhat yellowish in color (like corn) and looks more like dust (i.e., from corn processing) than a liquid (i.e., bird poop).   Here's a slow motion video capturing the moment of impact:  Friedman, Lisa, and Michael D. Shear. Biden Will Allow Summertime Sales of Higher-Ethanol Gas. The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/business/economy/biden-ethanol-gas.html. The Internet Says a Bird Pooped on Joe Biden in Iowa. Heres What Really Happened. Des Moines Register, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/13/president-joe-biden-bird-poop-menlo-iowa-visit-distillers-grain/7303450001/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Manno, Adam. Bird Poops on Bidens Shoulder during a Speech on Gas Prices in Iowa. Mail Online, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712901/Feathered-fiend-poops-Bidens-shoulder-inside-Iowa-barn-unveils-plan-lower-gas-prices.html. President Joe Biden Announces Policy E-15 Gas At POET Bioprocessing in Menlo. Raccoon Valley Radio - The One to Count On, https://www.raccoonvalleyradio.com/2022/04/13/president-joe-biden-announces-policy-e-15-gas-at-poet-bioprocessing-in-menlo/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. President Joe Biden in Iowa OKs More Ethanol Use to Cut Gas Prices, Pitches Plan to Improve Rural America. Des Moines Register, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/12/joe-biden-president-news-iowa-menlo-e-15-ethanol-gas-prices-fuel-poet-epa-joni-ernst/7289524001/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Remarks by President Biden on Lowering Energy Costs for Working Families. The White House, 12 Apr. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/12/remarks-by-president-biden-on-lowering-energy-costs-for-working-families/. Roche, Darragh. Joe Biden Bird Poop Video Viewed 2M Times as Critics Gleefully Share Clip. Newsweek, 13 Apr. 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-bird-poop-video-viewed-2m-times-critics-gleefully-share-clip-1697470. U.S. President Biden Visits a POET Bioprocessing Plant in Menlo. UnionLeader.Com, https://www.unionleader.com/u-s-president-biden-visits-a-poet-bioprocessing-plant-in-menlo/image_d630c531-5f37-5606-a212-1c21ee2837a0.html. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Updated [April 15, 2022]: Added additional reporting from AG Wired.