Are Traffickers Leaving Zip Ties on Targets' Windshield Wipers?
In November and December 2019, a meme circulated on Facebook warning that human traffickers were leaving zip ties on women's windshield wipers as they shopped to mark them as potential victims/targets for abduction:This was a variation of a familiar meme that we identified as false in July 2019. At that time we reported:  July 2019 Human trafficking affects millions of people worldwide, but its also the frequent subject of viral scarelore  fictional tales intended to frighten audiences, often prompting them to share without questioning the story. millions One such story went viral in October 2018 and again in late July 2019 when social media users shared a meme stating that human traffickers were leaving zip ties (in some posts, black in color) on homes, mailboxes, and cars, of potential female victims to either mark them as targets or distract and abduct them for sex-trafficking purposes when the women try to remove the ties. some The hoax initially centered on San Angelo, Texas, in October 2018 but police there quickly debunked it. We rate the newer variation as "False" as well, because although police in College Station, Texas, addressed the meme and reminded citizens to always be aware of their surroundings, officers were unaware of zip ties being used by human traffickers to mark potential victims. addressed   Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know.
Many homeowners are currently receiving receipts stamped Paid in the mail for their 2018 property tax bills. Whether the bill goes up or down each year is of paramount importance to homeowners. So politicians are also eager to weigh in on the issue. Today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Allowing taxpaying to keep more of their hard-earned money has been and will continue to be a top priority, state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, said Jan. 11, 2019 in atweet. Property taxesare levied on most types of real estate -- including homes, businesses, and parcels of land. The amount owed depends on the fair market value of the property, as determined by the local assessor. Is Nygren right? Are property taxes lower today than they were in 2010? The evidence The year 2010, of course, is not an arbitrary starting point. It marks the year Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and when the GOP won full control of the Legislature. Democrat Tony Evers is now in the governors office, after topping Walker in the 2018 election. When asked for backup to the claim, Nygrens chief of staff Nathan Schwanz pointed to a January 2019 report from theLegislative Fiscal Bureauon median property tax payments in the state. The nonpartisan fiscal bureau is considered the gold-standard on such financial and budget issues. Here is its breakdown for the years in question: 2010 - 2011-- $2,963 2011- 2012 -- $2,953 2012 - 2013 -- $2,943 2013 - 2014 -- $2,926 2014 - 2015 -- $2,831 2015 - 2016 -- $2,849 2016 - 2017 -- $2,852 2017 - 2018 -- $2,876 2018 - 2019 -- $2,870 (preliminary estimate)  So, the 2018-19 total is, indeed, lower than the 2010-11 total. The fiscal bureau regularly does such estimates, and they are routinely cited by politicians of both stripes.But its important to note they are an illustration -- some people's property taxes went down, some went up. Even if your home value was right at the statewide average, your tax bill might have been higher due to various factors, including levies in individual communities. Past ratings Meanwhile, we have checked variations of this claim in the past: *July 15, 2015: Walker claimed that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But we found the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. Our rating:Mostly True. *Jan. 13, 2017, Walker said property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. Our rating:True. *June 7, 2017, after a lower than 2010 claim from Walker, we wrote that fiscal bureau estimates of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued home found the tax was indeed lower. That time we found the drop in residential property taxes was due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less revenue. Our rating:Mostly True. Finally, we also used the Walk-O-Meter to monitor a promise by Walker to continue to reduce the tax burden on working families and seniors every year he was in office. This, of course, applied to all taxes -- not just property taxes. We rated the pledgePromise Kept. Are there any wrinkles this time? Yes. According to the fiscal bureau, the change over the latest two years -- from 2017-18 to 2018-19 -- is a net decrease for homeowners, even though the gross tax bill is projected to increase. Whats behind the difference? Funding for the lottery and gaming property tax credit increased by about $66 million, which contributed to the decrease in the median net tax bill. Where Wisconsin ranks To be sure, Wisconsin property taxes remain among the highest in the United States. Various property tax trackers place Wisconsin in the top 10, sometimes in the top five. The personal finance websiteWalletHubanalyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The website also used rates to obtain the dollar amount paid in real estate taxes on a median-valued home in each state. It ranked Wisconsin as the fifth worst state for property taxes. With the median home value sitting at $167,000, the typical tax bill comes to $3,257, according to WalletHub. Filling out the rest of thetop fivefor 2018 were: Median Home valueTaxes New Jersey: $316,400            $7,601 Illinois:  $174,800                  $4,058 New Hampshire: $239,700     $5,241 Connecticut: $269,300            $5,443 Wisconsin: $167,000              $3,257 But Nygrens claim was not about the states rank. So that does not factor into our rating. Our rating Nygren said today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Data from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau shows the statement generally rings true. But there have long been wrinkles on these claims -- from declining property values driving the drop to an increase in commercial and manufacturing property values shifting the burden from homeowners. Those sorts of factors are still in play, this time with tax credits contributing to latest decrease. And the rating is still Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 11, 2020, a Twitter user posted a new permutation of a conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems, the technology firm that provided voting systems in multiple U.S. jurisdictions in the November 2020 election, and which has also been the target of a disinformation campaign falsely claiming its systems were used to perpetrate widespread voter fraud. technology firm falsely claiming One of the narratives in the election fraud conspiracy theory holds that voting machines provided by Dominion switched votes from ballots cast for U.S. President Donald Trump to his challenger, Joe Biden, who is now president-elect. Trump has refused to accept his electoral loss, and has perpetuated the lie that Dominion machines were used en masse to flip votes. perpetuated Hence, more than a month after Biden was declared winner of the election, conspiracy theories continued to flourish. In this case, a Twitter user falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by a member of Biden family, namely his nephew. But the tweet in question is nothing but a patchwork of misleading screenshots and assumptions, based on people sharing a common surname. We cropped the user's name out below: falsely claimed   The screenshots in the meme above contain what appear to be the professional biographies of two men, Stephen Owens and R. Kevin Owens, neither of which mentions Dominion. The meme included in the tweet points to President-elect Biden's sister and campaign manager Valerie Biden Owens, with the alleged clincher being that Stephen Owens, a co-founder of Staple Street Capital, an investment firm that owns 75% stake in Dominion, shares a surname. However, "Owens" is a common last name, so that hardly serves as proof at all. co-founder owns Valerie and her husband, John T. Owens, have three children, none named Stephen. A spokesperson for Staple Street confirmed in an email to Snopes that Stephen Owens has no relation to the Biden family. three children And although the meme includes mention of R. Kevin Owens, an attorney who is related to Valerie's husband, we see no connection between this person and Dominion. related In other iterations of this conspiracy theory, the voting systems company has been falsely linked to deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as various Democratic politicians, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the Clinton Foundation, the charitable foundation run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hugo Chavez including Trump's own administration has undermined his post-election disinformation blitz by stating the November 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." undermined "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a Nov. 12, 2020, statement. statement Updated to note that a Staples Street representative confirmed Stephen Owens isn't related to the Bidens. The above-displayed image is a genuine photograph of President Obama conversing with some of his staff in the Oval Office with his feet up on his desk. However, most of the accompanying text that was reproduced with this image was contrived and subjective invective intended to stir up partisan outrage: It is true that in some parts of the world showing the bottom of one's shoes (even accidentally) is considered rude, but it isn't true of American culture, nor do the areas where it does hold true (primarily the Middle East, Korea, Thailand, some parts of Africa) comprise anything close to "over half of the cultures of the world." Thailand This posture is not the norm, perhaps, but it's far from "absolutely never done." Take, for example, this anecdote from a book about one of American's most prominent business executives, Apple's late co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs: Bill Curley, a middle-aged Apple marketing manager, remembers this incident from his very first week on the job at Apple. "I was at a meeting with [Apple CEO Steve] Jobs and several other managers, and he is in shorts, running shoes, and no socks. He's disagreeing with a guy, so he kicks off his shoes and puts his bare feet on the table. He framed the guy's face with his feet." An executive's kicking his feet up on a desk or table is an action that can be regarded quite differently in varying contexts: Doing so in the middle of a staff meeting might be regarded as demonstrating rudeness, arrogance, or disrespect; on the other hand, doing so at the end of a long, hard workday while engaging in friendly chit-chat with a few subordinates might be perceived as showing oneself to be a warm, folksy, regular ol' guy. If a U.S. President's putting his feet up on the Oval Office desk is an indication that "he thinks of himself as a king" and should be "inundated" with mail "demanding he stop desecrating his office," then we seem to have missed the boat on that issue  identical actions by President Obama's predecessors in the White House provoked no such outrage, as demonstrated by the following unremarked-upon photographs of Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford: This photograph became the subject of renewed interest after President Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was photographed kneeling with her feet on an Oval Office couch. kneeling In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. In October 2021, a list of what appeared to be failed, and in some cases rather bizarre, historical proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution proved popular on the online forum Reddit. An Oct. 20 post bore the headline "A list of American amendments that were never approved," and consisted of a photograph of a page from a book, containing the following text: Oct. 20 post The following is a very limited list of some of the proposed amendments that never left the halls of Congress: 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate1876 The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding1878 An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President1893 Renaming this nation the United States of the Earth1893 Abolishing the United States Army and Navy1894 Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs1912 Making marriage between races illegal1914 Finding divorce to be illegal1916 All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army.1933 An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war1938 The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories1947 The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%1948 The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.   On the whole, the list presented 15 proposed amendments with a very high degree of accuracy. Most were entirely accurate, a few were accurate in their substance, with some relatively insignificant disclaimers necessary, and only one involved a degree of misrepresentation.  The source of the list was "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It," a book that has been printed and updated by Oak Hill Publishing, since the early 1990s. The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It Oak Hill Publishing As the book suggests, the 15 proposals on the list represent a very tiny fraction of all of the failed proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution over the years. According the U.S. Senate historian, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789. Of those, only 27 have come into effect, while six others gained the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress, but failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789 The following is a breakdown of the details and context associated with each of the 15 failed amendments included in the list, presented in chronological order. 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate. In April 1876, U.S. Rep. Sobieski Ross, R-Pennsylvania, presented two "memorials" (petitions) on behalf of 22 residents of Potter County in northern Pennsylvania, near the border with upstate New York. One called for the "abolition of the presidency," the other called for the "abolition of the United States Senate." The proposed amendments were forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, but do not appear to have advanced from there.  presented two "memorials" (petitions) In April 1911, U.S. Rep. Victor Berger, a Socialist from Wisconsin, introduced his own proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate. The resolution read, in part: proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth... All legislative powers shall be vested in the House of Representatives. Its enactments, subject to referendum...shall be the supreme law, and the President shall have no power to veto them, nor shall any court have the power to invalidate them. Berger's proposal never made it out of committee, but shortly afterwards, the Senate passed a separate resolution that would go on to become the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct popular elections to the U.S. Senate, and replaced the existing method whereby state legislatures selected the members of the upper chamber.  separate resolution 1876: "The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.". This appears to be a reference to the Blaine Amendments  a series of proposals between 1875 and 1876, the first of which was made by James Blaine, a Maine Republican who was a member of the House, and then the Senate, during that period. Blaine's December 1875 proposal prohibited states from allowing religious groups or schools to receive taxpayer dollars, as follows:  December 1875 proposal No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any funds so raised, or lands so used, be divided among any religious sects or denominations. However, it did not address the eligibility of "religious leaders" to hold office, and its restrictions relating to public funding were limited to the states, rather than including federal funding. A subsequent Republican revision of Blaine's proposal, in 1876, did expand the funding restrictions to the federal level, but did not involve barring religious leaders from holding office.  Republican revision 1878: "An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President."  In the spring of 1878, U.S. Rep. Milton Southard, D-Ohio, introduced a proposal to replace the existing office of the president with a new "Supreme Executive Council of three." The triumvirate was to be chosen by "qualified electors" of the states, and taken from three would-be new districts: the Western states; the Eastern and Middle states; and the Southern states.  The original proposal can be found here. The exact stage at which the proposed amendment failed is not clear.  here 1893: "Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth'"1893: "Abolishing the United States Army and Navy." Based on a news report from the spring of 1893, and a 1987 New York Times article, both these measures were included in a proposed constitutional amendment put forward in February 1893, by U.S. Rep. Lucas Militiades Miller, D-Wisconsin.  news report from the spring of 1893 1987 New York Times article However, Miller may have made the proposals at the request of James Seldon Cowen, a Virginia inventor with eclectic interests and theories, who advanced detailed proposals for renaming the country, as well as abolishing the Army, Navy and their "schools of organized murder," in a book published the previous year.  inventor eclectic interests in a book published the previous year 1894: "Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs."In 1894, U.S. Sen. William Frye, R-Maine, introduced a proposal to amend the preamble to the Constitution and explicitly assert the Christianity of the United States. After the words "We the people of the United States," and before "in order to form a more perfect union," Frye proposed to add the following:  proposed to add the following ...devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of God in all the affairs of men and nations, and grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty; and encouraged by the assurances of His word, invoke His guidance, as a Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ,... 1912: "Making marriage between races illegal." In December 1912, U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Georgia, introduced a proposal to prohibit inter-racial marriage by way of constitutional amendment. Roddenberry, a white supremacist and racist extremist even by the standards of the early 20th century, explicitly cited his own revulsion at the recent high-profile marriage between Jack Johnson, the Black heavyweight boxer, and Lucille Cameron, a white woman, as the catalyst for his crusade against "miscegenation," as interracial relationships were at that time widely described.  In support of his cause, Roddenberry described inter-racial marriage as being "repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit," according to a contemporaneous news report that contains some exceptionally offensive racist language.  news report Roddenberry's proposed amendment did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee, but several states subsequently introduced laws banning inter-racial marriage, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia, that any and all laws prohibiting or restricting marriage based on racial considerations were in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.  did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia 1914: "Finding divorce to be illegal." In February 1914, U.S. Sen. Joseph Ransdell, D-Louisiana, proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce in the United States, arguing that the increased prevalence of divorce posed a threat to "the home," which he described as "the chief bulwark of society." He added: increased prevalence He added The remedy by constitutional prohibition is drastic, but the malady is so fatal that nothing short of it will prove efficacious. In the United States, divorce is spreading with alarming rapidity. It has permeated every walk of life and is prevalent among every class of people. The proposal did not make it out of committee.  did not make it out of committee 1916: "All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army." Several sources refer to a 1916 petition, signed by a group of Nebraska residents, which proposed to amend the constitution by requiring a referendum in order to declare war. A 1987 New York Times article reported that "the petition proposed that all those who voted in favor of the United States entering World War I be willing to enlist." Several sources We haven't yet tracked down that 1916 petition, but its description in the 1987 Times article was based on the account of a National Archives curator, and so can be relied upon as accurate. We were able to locate a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916, by U.S. Rep. Denver Church, D-California, who similarly called for a popular vote before any declaration of war. However, it's not clear if this was separate to the "Nebraska" proposal, or one and the same.  a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916 1933: "An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million." On May 9, 1933, U.S. Rep. Wesley Lloyd, D-Washington, proposed House Joint Resolution 178, which called for a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set "the maximum amount of wealth allowed to any one individual" at a ceiling of "1,000,000 gold dollars." It's not clear at what stage the proposal died, but it does not appear to have reached a vote in either house.  House Joint Resolution 178 1936: "An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war."true. (The proposed amendment would still have allowed the U.S. to go to war without popular approval, in the event of an attack or invasion). Since the 1910s, several members of Congress advocated for the introduction of referendums as a prerequisite for the United States' entering a war. Most notably, between 1935 and 1936, U.S. Rep. Louis Ludlow, D-Indiana, embarked on what one historian described as a "war referendum crusade."  one historian described as In January 1935, he introduced a resolution in the House, calling for a constitutional amendment that would require that, "except in the event of attack or invasion," any Congressional resolution to go to war must be put to a popular referendum, and would not come into effect unless backed by a majority of voters.  The resolution was debated in the House Judiciary Committee, where it remained during 1935 and 1936, but advanced no further. 1938: "The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories." In April 1938, U.S. Rep. Gomer Griffith Smith, D-Oklahoma, introduced House Joint Resolution 661, a proposed constitutional amendment that stated: "Drunkenness in the United States and all Territories thereof is hereby prohibited." The proposal was considered by the House Judiciary Committee, but appears to have gone no further. In a copy of the resolution provided to the committee  and now held by the National Archives  an unknown individual added a handwritten note ironically suggesting an additional section: "That period of time, commonly known as Saturday night, is hereby stricken from the calendars of the United States, and abolished." copy of the resolution 1947: "The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%"true. This one appears to be referring to one of two tax-related proposed constitutional amendments put forward in 1947 by U.S. Rep. Noah Mason, R-Illinois. We haven't yet been able to locate the exact wording of those proposals, but we know that a subsequent compendium of proposed constitutional amendments, compiled by the U.S. Senate Library, described House Joint Resolutions 24 and 256 as both being "relative to taxes on incomes, inheritances and gifts." compendium of proposed constitutional amendments 24 256 We also know that in the previous Congress, in 1945, Mason  a Welsh-born conservative Republican  had proposed House Joint Resolution 88, which the same compendium described as proposing to "repeal the Sixteenth Amendment"  which allowed Congress to levy a federal income tax without having to distribute those monies among the states  as well as limiting "income, gift and inheritance tax to 25 percent."  House Joint Resolution 88 It is therefore highly likely that Mason's subsequent proposals, in 1947, called for substantially the same outcome. 1948: "The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others."In May 1948, U.S. Rep. Oren Harris, D-Arkansas, introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution as follows: "The right of any number of citizens to voluntarily segregate themselves from others for any lawful purpose shall not be denied."  introduced a proposal Harris, who opposed racial desegregation, was explicitly responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Shelley vs. Kraemer, which had been published just days earlier. In that opinion, the Court had ruled that racially restrictive covenants  which were relatively common at that time and prohibited homeowners in historically white neighborhoods from selling their houses to non-white buyers  violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  explicitly responding Shelley vs. Kraemer Harris's proposal languished in the House Judiciary Committee.  1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.  In 1968, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisconsin, proposed a constitutional amendment that stated simply "Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every state shall guarantee this right." proposed Nelson, a progressive Democrat, environmentalist and co-founder of Earth Day, proposed the same amendment again in January 1970, explaining:  proposed the same amendment again in January 1970 In its degradation of the quality of American life, in its danger to the future of man himself, I believe the environmental crisis is the greatest single threat to our pursuit of those inalienable rights  life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness  which we have recognized as a society. Although that resolution was first introduced in 1970, the 91st Congress lasted until early 1971, so it's reasonable to date it to that year, although 1970 would probably be more suitable.  A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dissolve the United States Senate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/A-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-dissolve-the-United-States-Senate/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. A photograph supposedly showing two women in the moment just before they were executed by an unidentified man is often shared with the claim that the gunman seen in the picture is the Argentine-born Cuban revolutionary figure Che Guevara, despite the fact that the executioner's face is not visible in the photograph:   This photograph is nearly always shared with anti-socialist sentiments and often posted along with barbs directed at politicians such as Bernie Sanders orAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Most commonly it is shared as a meme with the caption "This is the image of Che Guevara that should be seen on t-shirts." Bernie Sanders Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez meme caption Che Guevara is a controversial historical figure, regarded as anything from a cultural hero to little more than a wanton murderer. A number of articles, books, movies, and documentaries can assist those curious about the Marxist revolutionary in forming an educated opinion about his legacy, but this photograph should not be included in a hypothetical course on the subject, as it doesn't show Che Guevara. articles books movies documentaries Our investigation into the origins of this photograph took us from baseless claims on social media to archival photographs documenting wars in places such as El Salvador and Yugoslavia. Ultimately, however, our search ended in an unlikely location: Atlanta, Georgia. Before this image was first associated with Che Guevara in late 2017, the photograph was circulated attached to a different claim. In 2011, this picture was included in a gallery about the Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front (FMLN) during the Salvadorian Civil War, a bloody conflict which started in 1980 (thirteen years after Guevara's death): included   However, we could not confirm that this photograph truly shows a member of the FMNL during the Salvadorian Civil War. When we reached out to Martn lvarez Alberto, an El Salvadorian historian with a special interest in the FMNL, to ask if he was familiar with this photograph, he told us that he had never seen it and that he doubted that the picture was taken in El Salvador. Alberto noted that the men looked Caucasian, not Salvadorian, and that the building in the background was more typical of locations such as Europe or the United States. Susan Meiselas, a documentary photographer who worked in El Salvador during the Civil War, came to a similar conclusion: The buildings in this image did not resemble those in El Salvador. Meiselas also hypothesized that the photograph was taken in eastern Europe. The relatively modern wardrobe of the two women, and the suggestion that this photograph was taken in Eastern Europe, led us to examine photographs of theYugoslav Wars in the early 1990s. An image of DraganVasiljkovi, the commander of a Serb paramilitary unit called the Kninde who was found guilty of war crimes by the Republic of Croatia, appears to show similar fatigues: war crimes   This, of course, is not hard evidence that the photograph was taken during the Yugoslav Wars. In fact, when we talked tophotojournalistRon Haviv, who documented the Yugoslav Wars, he told us that he did not recognize the uniform of the man in the viral picture. So where was this photograph taken and whom does it show? Although our focus so far has been on war crimes, we had our doubts that this photograph even documented such a historical event. The nonchalant posture of the second man watching this alleged execution, the various people in the background who seem to be wearing backpacks, and the smoking bucket (which we hypothesize could be a makeshift fog machine), lead us to believe that this might be a photograph taken on the set of an obscure film production:   As it turns out, that's pretty much what this photograph shows. We uncovered another copy of this image on the web site for CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), where it is presented as a photograph taken in 1989 of a "Guerrilla Theatre" performance at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia: CISPES   We reached out to CISPES for more evidence that this was a theatrical production and they provided us with images showing a physical copy of this photograph which featured the words "Emory College Atlanta Mar 89" scrawled on the back:   This photograph does not document Che Guevara executing two women. It was taken in the late 1980s at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and depicts a performance by a local "guerrilla theater" group. Mastinu, Luca.  "Bufala Acchiappalike 'Quanto Era Benevolo Il Che.'"   Bufale.net.  12 October 2017. Cosgrove, Ben.  "Che Guevara: The Rorschach Revolutionary."   TIME.  28 October 2014. El Torogoz.  "Album 12 De La Memoria Historica."   Retrieved 28 July 2018. Magnay, Jacquelin.  "Captain Dragan Convicted of War Crimes."   The Australian.  27 September 2017. Claim:  Target is distributing free $500 vouchers or $1000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] There is a Facebook post that states if you share a Target ad that says get a free $500 Target voucher, write the comment, "Thank you Target" and the click like you will get a voucher for that amount. Get Free $500 target voucher Now (97 Left)  text message received: "Your entry last month has WON! Go to https://targetcontest.com/ and enter code 4787 to claim your FREE $1000 Target Gift Card within 24 hours!"   Origins:  In mid-November 2012, a survey scam purporting to offer free $500 Target vouchers or $1000 gift cards to those who followed particular links then did as told once there spread via e-mail, Facebook, and text message. Those links led to web pages (which were not operated or sponsored by Target) that asked the unwary to click what appeared to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which was really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who followed such instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" gift card offer stated that by accepting its terms, the user agreed to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies. Other recent survey scams of similar construction include:  $500 or $1,000 Target gift cards [November 2012] Target  $100 or $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple Last updated:  24 November 2012    CBS 4 [Denver].  "Walmart Gift Card Text Hits Phones Across Denver Metro Area."   7 March 2012. On May 28, 2023, thedunning-kruger-times.com website reported, "Canceled: ABC Removes 'The View' From Its 2024 Roster: 'Nobody Watches Anymore.'" However, this was not a true story. Dunning-kruger-times.com is associated with America's Last Line of Defense, a network of websites that publishes satirical articles. Historically, the apparent goal of this network was to attempt to get conservative-minded Americans to believe and share the made-up stories. The beginning of the satirical article claimed that ABC had canceled "The View." The featured picture included with the story showed left-leaning hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar making facial expressions as if they had just found out their show was ending. article On June 6, the story appeared to be taking off on Twitter with more shares than on any day since it had been published.  Near the end of the story, it mentioned the word "taters." This term is what fans of America's Last Line of Defense use to refer to the website's conservative readers. The "About Us" pagefor dunning-kruger-times.com describes "taters" as follows: page "Taters" are the conservative fans of America's Last Line of Defense. They are fragile, frightened, mostly older caucasian Americans. They believe nearly anything. While we go out of our way to educate them that not everything they agree with is true, they are still old, typically ignorant, and again  very afraid of everything. Our mission is to do our best to show them the light, through shame if necessary, and to have a good time doing it, becauseold and afraid or not, these people are responsible for the patriarchy we're railing so hard against. They don't understand logic and they couldn't care less about reason. Facts are irrelevant. BUTthey do understand shame. In the past, the Washington Post, The Boston Globe,BBC, Politico, and others have all published articles about America's Last Line of Defense. Washington Post The Boston Globe BBC Politico We previously reported on a number of other rumors also about "The View," all of which can be read here. all of which can be read here Baker, Billy. "One of the Country's Biggest Publishers of Fake News Says He Did It for Our Own Good - The Boston Globe." BostonGlobe.Com, 7 Apr. 2018, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/04/07/one-country-biggest-publishers-fake-news-says-did-for-our-own-good/fzIDkkKZf7IbYA9oyGuzhI/story.html. Saslow, Eli. "'Nothing on This Page Is Real': How Lies Become Truth in Online America." Washington Post, 18 Nov. 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nothing-on-this-page-is-real-how-lies-become-truth-in-online-america/2018/11/17/edd44cc8-e85a-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html. Schwartz, Jason, and Shawn Musgrave. "The Supreme Court and Sharia Law: How a Fake-News Story Spreads." POLITICO, 14 May 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/fake-news-story-spreads-576752. Subedar, Anisa. "The Godfather of Fake News." BBC, 27 Nov. 2018, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news. On 9 July 2016, the Facebook page "The Medical Facts" published the image and explanation shown below, reporting the development of synthetic rhino horn as an anti-poaching measure: image A biotech startup has managed to 3-D print fake rhino horns that carry the same genetic fingerprint as the actual horn. The company plans to flood Chinese [the] Chinese rhino horn market at one-eighth of the price of the original, undercutting the price poachers can get and forcing them out eventually.  The International Rhino Foundation (IRF) and Save the Rhino International (SRI) issued a joint statement after "monitoring the progress of four US-based companies that have announced their intentions  with varying degrees of success  to produce synthetic or bio-fabricated rhino horn, and occasionally also other products including e.g. elephant ivory, lion bones or pangolin scales." In that statement, both groups expressed their opposition to the introduction of fake rhino horn to international markets: statement We are opposed to the development, marketing and sale of synthetic rhino horn [because]: o Selling synthetic horn does not reduce the demand for rhino horn or dispel the myths around rhino horn and could indeed lead to more poaching because it increases demand for the real thing o More than 90% of rhino horns in circulation are fake (mostly carved from buffalo horn or wood), but poaching rates continue to rise annually. o Synthetic horn could give credence to the notion that rhino horn has medicinal value, which is not supported by science. o Users buy from trusted sources and value the real thing. o The availability of legal synthetic horn could normalise or remove the stigma from buying illegal real horn. o It will take time to develop synthetic horn and meanwhile the poaching crisis continues. o How can consumers and law enforcement officials distinguish between legal synthetic horn that looks real, and illegal real horn? o Companies benefitting from making synthetic horn have shown very little commitment to use their profits to help the core problem of rhino poaching; besides which, those profits would meet only a tiny fraction of the total rhino protection costs that would remain to be met as long as demand reduction campaigns falter, as they would with the marketing of synthetic horn. o Finally, the manufacture / marketing / sale of synthetic horn diverts funds and attention from the real problem: unsustainable levels of rhino poaching. A December 2015 National Geographicarticle covered the efforts of one such biotechnology outfit producing synthetic rhino horn (Pembroke) and outlined some conservationist concerns about the unintended consequences of such a venture: article I frankly dont see that its any better, to be honest, says Susie Watts, a consultant for WildAid and co-chair of the Species Survival Network Rhino Working Group, referring to Pembients move to put faux powder on the back burner. While shes aware that people buy rhino horn jewelry, Watts has never heard of rhino horn cell phone cases and chopsticks. But opposition to Pembients synthetic horn plans extends beyond the possible new market it could create. Theres very little, if any, relief on wild populations when we see commercial farming develop or commercial trade of a protected species, says Douglas Hendrie, manager of the wildlife crime and investigations unit for conservation group Education for Nature - Vietnam. The wild trade continues right alongside. Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, also believes that inserting fake horn into the market could counteract efforts to educate people about why they shouldnt buy wild horn, a strategy most activists push as the best way to reduce demand. If you start to nuance that message with some rhino horn is good, some of it is bad, some of it is legal, some of it is illegal, he says, you lose people and lose the clarity of the message. Theres also concern that fake horn could increase the workload for law enforcement in countries already struggling to contain the illicit trade. According to Hendrie, Vietnam doesnt have the enforcement capacity to regulate the black market along with the legal one. A February 2016 followup article presented a five-point set of objections to the introduction of genetic copies of rhino horn to the market, filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity: presented Additionally, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace commented: Experience demonstrates that efforts to 'flood the market' with products produced from protected wildlifeeither by producing synthetic alternatives or raising animals in captivity for harvestoften fail to achieve their stated goal. Such efforts often create more demand from consumers, even as products from wild animals and plants continue to command a premium over synthetic or farmed alternatives. ... We also have significant concerns about injecting products into the market that would make it harder for law enforcement to detect poached and trafficked wildlife products, or allow criminals to disguise the source of illegal products by commingling them with these alternatives. In short, it's true that at least four biotechnology firms have engaged in some form of development of synthetic material genetically identical to rhino horn. Although progress in that area was initially hailed as a potential anti-poaching measure, conservation groups and wildlife officials have since expressed strong skepticism that the overall effects on the rhinoceros population of selling such material wouldn't be deleterious.  Members of both groups have espoused positions opposing the introduction of fake rhino horn to any market, citing anticipated demand uptick and burdens on already taxed enforcement agencies. Actman, Jani.  "Can Fake Rhino Horn Stop the Poaching of an Endangered Species?"
  National Geographic.  2 December 2015. Neme, Laurel.  "Petition Seeks Ban on Trade in Fake Rhino Horn."
  National Geographic.  10 February 2016. Save the Rhino International.  "Joint Statement by the International Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International."
  July 2015.