Vladimir Putin did not label Obama as foolish for implementing socialist policies.
On 15 February 2016, the Facebook page "The Original Wake Up People" posted a years-old memefeaturing a quote ostensibly uttered by Vladimir Putin:   This is not a real quote from the Russian president.The above-displayed quote has been circulating since 2009 in one form or another (usually in the form of a meme such as the above image) when it was originally published on the satirical web siteScooter's Report: published Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin haswarned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian historyclearly proves it is a recipe for failure. "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history," saidPutin. "President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy." Scooter's Report, whichfrequently featured anti-Obama rhetoric, has adisclaimer on the web site that states, "Like I have to tell you: This isfictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental." Putin has, however, addressed the responsibilities of businesses to the community in the past: addressed We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich.
Its one of Madisons worst-kept secrets: Republicans at the Capitol want to cut state income taxes, and hope to take up the issue in the 2013 legislative session, which begins in January.The question is: Cut them for who?On that, its a good idea to listen to Rep. Robin Vos, the Republican from Rochester who was elected Nov. 13, 2012 as speaker of the state Assembly.Vos made clear in a recentWisPolitics interviewthat his top priority is a middle-class income tax cut.If youre poor in Wisconsin, it is one of the best places in the country to be poor. Were in the bottom 10 states as far as paying taxes if youre poor, Vos said in the interview. If youre successful, we are in the middle. I think were number 15 or 16 ...But if youre a person in the middle class, somebody who makes $20,000 to $200,000, youre in the top 4 or 5 worst places in the country to be a middle-class income taxpayer.Vos went on to tell WisPolitics that Republicans want an across-the-board income-tax cut, though the primary benefits would go to the middle class. When we asked him to clarify what he meant, he told us fiscal constraints might preclude -- for now -- reducing income tax rates on upper-income earners for whom legislative Democrats and Gov. Jim Doyle raised the top rate in 2010.So, is Vos right about how the income tax burden affects low and middle-income earners?When asked for backup, Vos pointed us to research presented to the bipartisanSteering Committee on Income Tax, a study group chaired by Vos that was set up through the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council.Lower-income workers:Vos said their income tax burden is in the bottom 10, and its clear from the complete interview he meant among the 41 states that levy a personal income tax.In a November 2009 study, the nonpartisan, liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)ranked the burdenon the lowest one-fifth of Wisconsins earners as the 29th-lowest among those 41 states.Thats not quite bottom 10, but the groups executive Matthew Gardner told us the difference between Wisconsin and the lowest rung of the bottom 10 was so trivially small as to be meaningless.Another 50-state study, by theMinnesota Taxpayers Associationin 2011, ranked the low-income burden in Wisconsin as either 32nd- or 34th-lowest for married couples at $10,000 or $20,000. Both are bottom 10.In Wisconsin, as in several other states, the working poor often have a negative income tax bill -- they get tax credits that wipe out their tax liability and in some cases result in a payment to them from the state.Wisconsin would be lower in these rankings, but some states pay even larger credits.Middle-income earners:Vos said this group faces a top-five burden.Income taxes paid by Wisconsin married couples and single heads of household in the $75,000 to $100,000 income range are fifth-highest in the country, based on the Minnesota study. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue indirectly cited the Minnesota study in testimony before the Vos-chaired study group.A sub-group of all married couples -- senior couples making $100,000 -- have the fourth-highest.The Minnesota groups research director, Aaron Twait, said he considers the $100,000 mark for two earners a classic middle-class household, based on average incomes in Wisconsin and Minnesota.In addition, the ITEP study shows only four states collecting a higher average tax rate than Wisconsin in the $57,000-$88,000 range.So Vos has evidence to back up this part of his claim.But when you look at other levels within Voss middle-class range of $20,000 to $200,000, the burden is not quite as heavy as Vos said.For example, at the $150,000 level in the Minnesota study, the rankings are No. 10 for singles, No. 8 for married couples filing jointly and No. 9 for single heads of household. Again, thats among the 41 states with an income tax.At $50,000, we found a mix of rankings between No. 3 and No. 7.Finally, Vos mentioned one other income group, the successful, by which he meant upper-income. Its not part of the claim were testing, but Vos said that groups income-tax burden was in the middle of the 41 states.Thats basically on target. We found tax-burden rankings from No. 11 to No. 17 for top earners in categories such as $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million annual income. These rankings were from the Minnesota study. The ITEP study also shows the rankings falling as income rises.Our ratingVos said that when it comes to income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners.Hes mostly on target here, based on credible tax studies showing a very low burden on the working poor, compared to a very high burden on many middle-income earners.Not all the middle-income earners face a top-5 tax burden, though: Its top-10 for some in the middle-class as he defined it.We rate his claim Mostly True. Although the custom is sometimes more honored in the breach than in the observance, the U.S. Flag Code states that "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." Flag Code  Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism, Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama caused something of a stir in September 2007 when he was seemingly spotted not observing the hand-over-heart protocol during a playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at an Indianola, Iowa, steak fry attended by the six top Democratic presidential candidates: Boy, that's exactly who we need as President! Does this man not cross his heart when the National Anthem is playing, or when the flag is raised or lowered? OR, was this an accident on his part? Photo shows 4 of them, including the infamous Hillary... Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name). The article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE. How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?  The photograph itself is real, one of several images of the Iowa steak fry event published by Time, and shows then-Senator Barack Obama standing with his hands clasped just below his waist, while New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, New York senator Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin (wife of Iowa senator Tom Harkin) stand with their hands held over their hearts. It's difficult to establish context from a single still image, but other accounts (including ABC News video of the event) documented that the picture was as described: Time  (It's not clear from the photograph or the video just what the candidates were looking at. The Flag Code advises that they should be "standing at attention facing the flag," but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they're standing. Presumably another flag was in place off to the right of the platform, since most of the candidates were facing that direction.) As we noted earlier, although the U.S. Flag Code still specifies that those present should stand "with the right hand over the heart" during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, that particular form is one that has generally come to be observed less and less consistently among the general public over the decades: Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web. Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner. "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant." As for whether this incident was an "accident," whether Senator Obama habitually declines to perform the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there's any particular meaning to the (non-)action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded: "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." The senator himself said that "My grandfather taught me when I was two. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing." When television's Inside Edition ran a segment on this issue, they included some images (supplied by the Obama campaign) of the senator standing with his hand over his heart during other playings of the national anthem:   The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photograph claimed that Senator Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The following video clip shows Barack Obama reciting the Pledge during the opening of U.S. Senate sessions:  During the Democratic candidates' debate on 15 January 2008, Senator Obama directly refuted the three primary rumors about him that were then circulating via e-mail: that he is a Muslim, that he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance:  This item saw renewed interest in April 2017, when First Lady Melania Trump seemingly had to nudge her husband, President Donald Trump, to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem while celebrating the annual White House Easter Egg Roll:  A spoof article about Barack Obama's stance on the U.S. national anthem was later circulated via e-mail as a genuine statement the then-senator. spoof Adair, Bill.  "E-Mail Assailing Obama's Patriotism Misses Mark."
  St. Petersburg Times.  9 November 2007. Cornwell, Rupert.  "Obama Discovers Perils of Not Wearing His Patriotic Heart on His Sleeve."
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  25 October 2007. Halperin, Mark.  "Steak and Stump Speeches in Iowa."
  Time.  16 September 2007. Golab, Art and Abdon M. Pallasch.  "'I Decided I Won't Wear That Pin on My Chest'."
  Chicago Sun-Times.  5 October 2007. "Obama Captured on Tape Not Putting His Hand Over His Heart During the National Anthem."
  FOX News  (Hannity & Colmes).    23 October 2007. Aug. 26, 2020: Outdated video links have been updated. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True. Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinbills herself as the education candidate. She has, after all, spent her career in education - serving as a community college professor, as the states superintendent of public instruction and on the boards of the University of California and California State University systems. Early in her campaign, the Democratic candidate has called for a reinvestment in education, including funding for universal preschool and tuition-free college. Also on the topic of higher education, Eastin has claimed in recent months that California has failed to prioritize college construction in favor of prisons. Weve built six total (college) campuses  one UC, three CSUs, two community colleges  since 1965. Thats six campuses but 23 prisons, Eastin said in aninterview with Capital Public Radioon Oct. 16, 2017. This is not the only time Eastin has made this colleges-to-prisons comparison. In May, during herspeechat the 2017 California Democratic Party State Convention, Eastin asserted that California had built just six colleges but 22 prisons since 1985. Was Eastin right? Has California built nearly four times as many prisons as colleges since 1965, or perhaps since 1985? We set out on a fact check. Our research First, we looked at prisons. The portion of Eastins claim about 23 prisons built since 1965 is correct, according to achronological listproduced by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Twenty-one have opened since 1985. Altogether, California operates 35 state prisons and houses about 129,000 inmates, according to a March 2017reportby the California Legislative Analysts Office. California is also home to 12 federal prisons. But because the state is not responsible for their construction or operation, we have decided not to include them. Colleges A glance at the history of the UC and CSU systems shows Eastin is again correct, at least on this portion of her claim: The University of California at Merced opened in 2005, the lone campus in the 10-campus UC system added since 1965. Meanwhile, the state has constructed three California State University campuses during this period: Cal State San Marcos in 1990, Cal State Monterey Bay in 1995 and Cal State Channel Islands in 2002. They are the newest additions to the 23-campus CSU system. We found, however, a glaring error on Eastins count of community colleges. There have been 41 of those campuses built since 1965 -- not the two she claimed in the radio interview. Thats according to a list on the California Community Colleges Chancellors Officewebsite. See a list of the colleges below: I think it speaks to the important role that California community colleges play in meeting local education demand, said Erik Skinner, the community college systems deputy chancellor, about the pace of construction. Skinner said the system has also opened 70 smaller community college satellite centers, across the state during this period. Nine of the systems full-scale community colleges have been built since 1985, again far more than the two Eastin claimed for this time period in her convention speech. An error in good faith Eastins spokesman Jon Murchinson acknowledged the inaccuracy of the community college statistic -- a figure that greatly throws off her six colleges to 23 prisons comparison. He told PolitiFact California it was an error in good faith as (Eastin) had heard the number from someone, and that she regrets using it without verifying the source. He said she wont be using it in the future. While Eastin missed the mark, a look at campus data shows the California community college system has significantly slowed its pace of construction. It built a combined 32 campuses in the 1960s and 70s but only nine in the nearly four decades after. Skinner, the systems deputy chancellor, said construction is driven by population growth and economic conditions, which fueled the campus boom in the 60s and 70s. It has focused on adding to its existing colleges and on student completion rates in recent decades. Our ruling In a recent Capital Public Radio interview, candidate for California governor Delaine Eastin claimed the state has built only six college campuses, including two community colleges, but 23 prisons since 1965. Eastin was right in her count of state prisons. But she was way off the mark on colleges: California has opened 41 community colleges, three California State University campuses and one University of California campus for a total of 45 campuses since 1965. Eastin made a similar claim at the California Democratic Convention in May, though she used a more recent timeline. She said California had built just six colleges but 22 prisons since 1985. That statement is also inaccurate. Eastins campaign told us the candidate made a mistake and will correct her figures in future statements. We rate Eastins claim from her radio interview False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. PolitiFact California intern Kathryn Palmer contributed research and writing for this article. Governors race Delaine Eastinis among several Democratic candidates competing to succeed Jerry Brown in the 2018 California governor's race. Others include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa; California TreasurerJohn Chiang; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include state AssemblymanTravis Allenand San Diego businessmanJohn Cox. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See ourTracking The Truthgovernors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. In early February 2021, social media users shared a copypasta meme spreading the baseless rumor that U.S. President Joe Biden had revoked millions of dollars in funding from the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), a charitable organization that provides scholarships for Black higher education students and institutions, which former President Donald Trump had pledged to give to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) over the next 10 years. Here is an example of the meme circulating on social media:   We found no evidence of any truth to this claim. It appears to be a case of a rumor spread by way of copypasta  text forwarded via social media platforms by people copying and pasting it from profile to profile. copypasta We reached out to UNCF to ask about the meme. Lodriguez Murray, senior vice president of public policy and government affairs told us that there is no truth to it. Murray pointed out that UNCF is a private, nonprofit organization and as such, receives money from private donors, not the federal government. Instead, UNCF advocates the federal government. He also pointed out that federal funding is the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. purview The copypasta, Murray said, "sounds like a lie and no one should ever use UNCF's good name or HBCUs or populations traditionally held down by systemic racism to make their erroneous case." Murray also pointed out that as part of his campaign, Biden had promised more funding for higher education, which included $70 billion for HBCUs and other institutions that serve minority students. more funding Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. As the 2018 campaign comes to a close, the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund has sent a mailer to homes in Texas 7th Congressional District saying that John Culberson, a Republican congressman, is wrong for Houston. As partial proof, it said he was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught is an interesting word, since the nine-term incumbent, now challenged by Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, disclosed the memorabilia purchases, which he says he gave as gifts from his campaign. As for the fossils, his campaign insisted there were no such purchases -- and said it only bought books and maps from a business that happens to also sell fossils. Critics have made a false assumption, the Culberson campaign told us initially. Well look at both parts of the claim but will give away a bit of what we found right here: He bought fossil replicas. If you wonder why an environment group would care about fossils and Culberson, the group noted that Culberson said in late summer that his purchases were for research into such things as paleoclimatology, or the study of climates before instrumental records were widely available, to help him better understand climate change. Environmental Defense Fund Action says that for all this studying, Culberson still refuses to accept scientific research on the matter. Culberson has said humans played a role in climate change but, ashe toldthe Los Angeles Times in 2015,  We just dont have enough data or accurate data to say with certainty what that effect has been. Lets take fossils first. The congressmans critics based their claim on a mention in a 2012 campaign finance report that Culbersons campaign made two purchases from a South Dakota organization, the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research. The institute sells fossils, replicas and other things, and Culberson spent $309.66 altogether there, Federal Election Commission records show. The purchase was part of a broader set of Culberson expenses being questioned by Texas Democrats -- a set of questions we are not addressing fully here because we are looking specifically at campaign ads and claims. But for a bit of perspective, theHouston Chroniclewrote in August that Texas Democrats were challenging nearly $50,000 in Culberson campaign spending since 2004. Focusing just on fossils, PolitiFact asked Culbersons campaign what it bought from the Black Hills Institute. We were told it bought books and maps, not fossils, the same explanation the campaign has given since August. Only in politics does a person get attacked for trying to be better at their job, Culberson campaign spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said. The mailer from the Environmental Defense Action Fund is factually wrong. The congressman never bought fossils with campaign contributions and all other purchases are acceptable under House and FEC rules. Culberson is a voracious reader, and has spent thousands of dollars from his campaign account for books and materials, including some on paleoclimatology, that his campaign says were related to his job. In just the 2011-12 campaign season, Culbsersons campaign spent $9,848 on research or research materials, most of it from vendors such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, FEC records reviewed by PolitiFact show. Culberson chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on science and such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The research material helps him better understand the changing levels of carbon dioxide in the climate, his campaign says. Asked about records that would show he was buying books and maps, not fossils, from the Black Hills Institute, his campaign said the 2012 records for such specific purchases no longer exist. PolitFact, however, called the Black Hills Institute. They pulled the invoices from Culberson's two separate orders and sent us copies. This is what the campaign paid for, excluding shipping charges: Three large wall charts showing extensive histories of the Earth and matter, dating back 4.5 billion years. The charts have columns showing tectonic maps, changes in the earth such as mountain formation, major volcanic eruptions, glacial epochs, craters from asteroids and comets and extensive information on fossils, invertebrates and vertebrate lifeforms, as well as their extinction. These cost $19.95 apiece. One desktop model of a Triceratops. It cost $84.05. Two large -- 4.5 inches -- fossil replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth. Each cost $40. The FEC gives pretty wide latitude to the purchase of books and other materials that a candidate or officeholder might use in his or her official capacity, Brendan Fischer, an expert on campaign finance law at the Campaign Legal Center, told us. But what about a Triceratops model and replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth fossil? Id like to hear their explanation for it, he said. Its hard to see how it would pertain to their official duties. We told the campaign what we found, and it asked what our proof was. So we sent the campaign the invoices for the congressmans purchases. The response from Kelly, the spokeswoman: The invoices confirm that the congressman never bought actual fossils, and every purchase from the Black Hills Institute is considered acceptable under House and FEC rules. Asked why the congressman bought the replicas and the model at all, Kelly said, While these purchases were more than six years ago and now being used as part of a coordinated partisan hit job, the congressman believes these particular purchases were gifts, which is completely acceptable under FEC and House rules. The mailer from Environmental Defense Fund Action also mentioned Culbersons use of campaign money to buy collectibles and Civil War memorabilia. This, too, originated from the Democrats complaint referenced in the Houston Chronicle. Culberson is a Civil War history buff, collector and sometime-seller of memorabilia. But when it comes to his campaign funds, the purchases were for items such as stamps and coins the congressman got in order to give out as gifts, his campaign said. Congress members frequently use campaign money to buy gifts for constituents and volunteers, and the Culberson campaign said the Texas Republican was doing nothing different from what House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has done when buying white orchids. The FEC allows candidates and officeholders to buy and give as gifts items of nominal value as long as they are not given to family members, Fischer said. FEC reports show only what a candidate or officeholder pays, not the value of the each item. For example, in 2014, Culbersons campaign spent $3,631 on coins from an antique coin seller. In 2009 and 2010, the campaign spent $4,181 on antiques and coins for gifts, includinghat stars(an emblem worn on soldiers hats) and Texas Centennial and Republic of Texas coins, FEC records show. Culbersons campaign said the value of each coin was about $25, and the value of stamps was about $10. For a broader view, we downloaded FEC data showing all federal candidate purchases -- those for everyone with a federal campaign account -- of items listed as gifts just since January 2017. The total reached $1.8 million, for everything from model airplanes to a quilt to gift baskets. Environmental Defense Fund Action said Texas U.S. Rep. John Culberson was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught seemed strong to us at first, given the campaigns denials. But with a phone call and email, it turned out that Culberson had in fact used campaign funds -- not for fossils, but for replicas and a desktop model. Our ruling comes down to perspective. The mailers spin seemed a little strong at first, especially knowing that gift purchases, whether for Civil War trinkets or not, are allowable if considered of nominal value. But the insistence of the campaign that Culberson did not buy fossils -- and that he had only bought books and maps -- is a factor as well. OK, he didnt buy fossils. He bought fossil replicas. We rate the claim Mostly True. On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document  Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income:   Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500):   If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%.  A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara.  "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
  MarketWatch.  7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven.  "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
  The Washington Post.  23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive.  "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria  Stock Price Skyrockets."
  Bipartisan Report.  7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill.  "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
  Palmer Report.  7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom.  "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
  TheStreet.  7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy.  "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
  The Atlantic.  7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland.  "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter.  "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
  Scribd.  22 July 2015  (page 37). The Dallas Morning News.  "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
  14 June 2016  (page 37). On 9 March 2018, a woman claiming to be a social worker at Roanoke, Virginia, social services department, tweeted that she had been fired from solely because she had a concealed carry permit. The woman, whose name is Storm Durham, also said that she would sue the city "for every penny":  tweeted I was fired today. From Roanoke City Social Services, serving as a damn good social worker. I was fired for having a concealed carry permit. Not the gun, the permit. I was escorted by 3 city police officers bc I am a "safety risk to the building"  Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Oh suing for every penny  Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Hours later, a meme appeared on the Facebook page "Chuck Callesto": meme appeared    Durham also shared her claim in a post on Facebook, as well as live videos in which she said she wanted to be a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. The claim, predictably, went viral, with people from across the United States posting angry comments on unrelated City of Roanoke Facebook posts. claim Facebook live videos Someone claiming to have knowledge of the incident also commented, claiming that Durham's boyfriend had threatened a coworker. The comment was later deleted:   Although we were unable to substantiate those claims, the City of Roanoke's Office of Communications sent us a statement refuting Durham's claim on 12 March 2018: A former employee of the City of Roanoke recently posted via social media assertions regarding the basis of her dismissal from City employment. Her posting has also been reported in other media. The City does not publicly comment on specific personnel matters. In light of these assertions, however, it is important to note that the City of Roanoke respects the Constitutional rights of its citizens and that the dismissal in question was not based upon anyones exercise of such rights. In addition, the office told us: The City has no policy or procedure limiting the right of its employees to hold concealed carry permits as authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Durham herself told The Roanoke Times that her termination papers showed different reasons for her firing from the city, where she had worked for less than a year: reasons Four months ago, she said, her trainer taught her a procedure that she followed, but then was reprimanded for it by her supervisor. So she alerted her trainer, who sent her a nasty email calling her sloppy and unprofessional. Durham said she took the matter to her supervisor, who, along with the trainer, threw her under the bus. Later, Durham said, she was given a set of performance expectations that required her to close cases at a faster pace. She acknowledged it took her time to adjust to the caseload in Roanoke after coming from rural Craig County, but said she exceeded all expectations. However, Durham said, she was told that it was actually because of her gun permit: The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. Friday, she was summoned to the office of the assistant director of the department, was told she was being fired and given the document listing the reasons. At the top, she said, was a concern about workplace safety. Durham said she asked about it and was told by the assistant director that her possession of a concealed weapons permit made her a safety risk in the building and for co-workers. Three Roanoke police officers escorted her to her desk, Durham said, where her personal possessions were loaded onto a cart and pushed to her car by one of the officers while the two others escorted her out of the building. We obtained a copy of the official police report in response to our request, which reads in part: Mr. Goss advised that she has a conceal carry permit and believed that she usually has a weapon in her vehicle.... We arrived at 1547 hours. The call was reported on the 3rd floor (Social Services Department). Upon arrival to the 3rd floor we were escorted to one of the offices in the back where we met with Mr. Goss and another employee advising us they wanted us there because they didn't know how Ms. Durham was going to react to the situation. On 13 March 2018, a copy of Storm Durham's termination letter was shared by WSLS.com. In it, "performance concerns, attendance, dress code issues and unprofessional behavior" were cited as the reasons for her dismissal: shared   13 March 2018, 3:46 P.M.: Added excerpts from The Roanoake Times and the official police report. 14 March 2018, 2:43 P.M.: Added letter of termination provided to Durham by the City of Roanoke Department of Social Services. A photo often shared on social media purportedly shows an electric bus driving into a "charging and power station" in the early 1900s. shared  The picture shows an authentic bus charging station operated by the London Electrobus Company during that company's short existence between 1906 and 1909. A version of this photo appears in the Getty Images archives. version As reported by The Economist in 2007, these charging stations were not plug-in stations as we know them today, but instead were facilities in which old batteries were swapped for fresh ones: reported The electrobus needed 1.5 tonnes of lead-acid batteries to carry its 34 passengers. It could travel 60km (38 miles) on one charge. So at lunchtime the buses went to a garage in Victoria and drove up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones. It all took three minutes.  An ad for the company indicated that they had two charging and power stations for electric buses located at 1 Earl Street and 45 Horseferry Road in London. Here is another close-up photo of one such "electrobus" from 1907: An ad  By several reports, the buses were a hit, thanks to their reduced noise and smoother ride. In debuting their first bus in 1906, the directors of the company said that they "confidently anticipate that the petrol omnibus, young as it is, will shortly be an obsolete vehicle, so far as urban traffic is concerned." reports said It was not to be. The company was beset by allegations of fraud during its effort to go public on the London Stock Exchange in 1908. As described in The Economist, the company had been duped by a team of con artists: described The firm was buying rights to a patent for 20,000 (7.5m, or $15m, in today's money) from the Baron de Martigny. But the patent was old and had nothing to do with battery buses. It was a scam. Investors asked for their money back, and the firm had to return 80,000. The investors would have been even less impressed had they known the true identity of the "Baron", who was a Canadian music-hall artist. Martigny was only the front man. The mastermind behind this and a clutch of subsequent scams was Edward Lehwess, a German lawyer and serial con-artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. After this initial fiasco, the London Electrobus Company struggled to raise money. But Lehwess had set up a network of front companies to siphon off its funds. Chief among these was the Electric Vehicle Company of West Norwood, which built the buses. The company collapsed entirely in 1909. Because, however, the photo is in several archives and the buses and their charging stations are documented in newspaper accounts from that time, the claim is  "Electrobus Makes Debut on Streets of London." The San Francisco Call, 27 May 1906, p. 19. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120381891/electrobus-makes-debut-on-streets-of/. "How Crooks Stalled the Rise of Electric Cars for 100 Years." New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531420-600-how-crooks-stalled-the-rise-of-electric-cars-for-100-years/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023. "The London Electrobus Company Limited." The Guardian, 27 Apr. 1908, p. 9. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120388804/london-electrobus-1908/. "What Is This That Roareth Thus?" The Economist, https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2007/09/08/what-is-this-that-roareth-thus. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023.