Bush on Ribs
Claim:  Transcript records President Bush's remarks to reporters at a New Mexico restaurant.  Status:  True. Example:  [whitehouse.gov, 2004] Remarks by the President to the Press PoolNothin' Fancy CafeRoswell, New Mexico  11:25 A.M. MST  THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.  Q Mr. President, how are you?  THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.  Q What would you like?  THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.  Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.  THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch  what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?  Q Right behind you, whatever you order.  THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?  Q But Mr. President  THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?  Q Yes.  THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?  Q Ribs.  THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.  Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?  THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?  Q An answer.  Q Can we buy some questions?  THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people  they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.  Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?  THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.  END 11:29 A.M. MST Origins:  This transcript, archived at the White House web site, certainly reads as one of the more unusual Presidential press conferences in recent memory.  But much of the oddness stems from the fact that the transcript provides no context for the remarks contained therein; a little background helps to make it more understandable. White House After delivering his State of the Union address on 20 January 2004, President Bush undertook a two-day, three-state swing through Ohio, Arizona, and New Mexico.  The morning of 22 January found the President in Roswell, New Mexico, where he delivered a 40-plus minute speech at the town's Convention and Civic Center in front of 1,800 cadets from the New Mexico Military Institute, law enforcement officers studying at the International Law Enforcement Academy's graduate center and the Federal Law Enforcement Training center, and local  residents.   The President wrapped up his speech a bit before 11:30 AM, and he then surprised many Roswell residents by sending his motorcade to the Nuthin' Special Cafe on Main Street  described as "a local eatery known more for its 50-cent beer than its food"  for lunch.  After entering the restaurant and shaking some hands, the President decided to give the local economy a boost by strolling behind the counter and cajoling members of the traveling press into ordering some food.   A couple of White House correspondents, David Gregory of NBC (referred to in the transcript as "Stretch") and Terry Moran of ABC, tried to turn the occasion into an impromptu press conference, but President Bush held firm, stating in no uncertain terms that he was there to take food orders, not to answer questions from the press.   According to cafe owner Armando Aceves, the President ordered pork ribs and buttermilk pie and autographed a menu. However, Jim Lakely of the Washington Times, a designated pool reporter for the Roswell trip, noted that the President was unsuccessful in convincing the reporters in question to purchase any ribs themselves.  Once President Bush and his entourage were back on-board Air Force One with their take-out orders, someone from the White House staff sent some ribs back to the press corps. There wasn't enough to go around, though. A letter writer to the Albuquerque Journal later noted that President Bush did not leave a tip when he departed.  But, as that newspaper reported, the Nuthin' Fancy Cafe staff still ended up with a larger payment than they were expecting: "But you don't expect a tip from take-out," said Beverly Patterson, one of the servers who helped with the president's order of ribs, corn bread, butter and honey. "And how many other people can say they had the pleasure and honor of having the president visit their place?" adds Patterson, who has worked at the cafe for three years.  Bush paid for the order with $30 in cash. Patterson says the president called later from Air Force One and said, "You didn't charge me enough, and I'm going to send more money." But Edward Zavala, Nuthin' Fancy's manager, says he told the president they didn't want any more money. "We were willing to give him the meal free, but the president wanted to pay," Zavala adds. "We didn't care for the money. This was a once-in-a-lifetime deal." Last updated:  19 August 2007    Sources:   Coleman, Michael.  "From These Ribs . . ."   Albuquerque Journal.  24 January 2004  (p. A8).    Hoffman, Leslie.  "Bush Touts Policies, Focuses on War on Terrorism During Roswell Visit."   The Associated Press.  22 January 2004.    Moskos, Harry.  "Mr. Bush Paid Bill in Cash."   Albuquerque Journal..  8 February 2004  (p. C1).
Claim:  In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke out against raising the U.S. government debt limit.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011]   'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'    Origins:  In 2006, while serving his first term as a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made the remarks attributed to him above during discussion in the U.S. Senate prior to the call for votes on raising the debt limit. The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:     The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like    bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans  a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.    But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to thecommonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.    Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.    Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.    The shortened quote now attributed to him is a verbatim capture of the opening and closing paragraphs of his remarks of 16 March 2006. (The Senate vote held later that day on a resolution to increase the debt limitpassed by a 52-48 margin, with Senator Obama voting against it.) passed President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:     Last updated:  7 October 2013    Congressional Record.  "Remarks by Sen. Barack Obama."    16 March 2006.   Farley, Robert.  "Obama Says Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 18 Times; George W. Bush 7 Times."    St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2011.   Stephanopoulos, George.  "President Obama One-on-One."    Good Morning America.  15 April 2011.   Werner, Erica.  "WH: Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit."    Associated Press.  11 April 2011. In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325 On Christmas morning of 2020, a recreational vehicle   exploded on the streets of Nashville near a building owned by AT&T that lies one block from the companys office tower.  Shortly afterwards, social media users began circulating variants of a conspiracy theory holding that AT&T had been engaged to undertake a "forensic audit of Dominion voting machines," the latter of which were frequent targets of false election fraud claims made by President Donald Trump and his supports after Trump lost his re-election bid in November 2020: exploded election fraud   The implication of the conspiracy theory was that the explosion had been intended to destroy the machines before they were audited in order to cover up evidence of massive voting fraud. However, both AT&T and Dominion have disclaimed the notion that the former company was engaged in audit of the latter, or that any Dominion-related systems were being moved to Nashville in preparation for a "forensic audit" (by anyone).  No available external evidence suggests AT&T was involved in any such audit, either. As of now, the person of interest identified by the FBI in connection with the explosion, Anthony Quinn Warner, is believed to have been "paranoid about 5G technology" (another frequent subject of conspiracy theories) rather than possessing any election-related motive. Anthony Quinn Warner 5G technology conspiracy theories On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record that he ever tweeted or said these words. Facebook posted Tesla Elon Musk The Facebook post looked like this:  This quote had plenty of comments where users had simply posted, "So true!" We've found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator. found The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words. Musk replied Musk tweeted Musk During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman. Richard Feynman Mark Twain Jack Nicholson Clint Eastwood Morgan Freeman A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others to not confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s. Google Books Newspapers.com For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence." issue In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence." book In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said the words, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things." said On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horse power or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school." printed On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees." printed Musk Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree." Musk In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." Musk Crane, Dr. George W. The Worry Clinic. The Charlotte News via Newspapers.com, 29 Mar. 1952, https://www.newspapers.com/image/618394675/. New York Court of Appeals. Records and Briefs. 1941. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/New_York_Court_of_Appeals_Records_and_Br/gi--1CvP1asC. Printers Ink. Decker Communications, Incorporated, 1922. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Printers_Ink/z_BDAQAAMAAJ. Rafferty, Max. Not from Heaven: Popular to Be Morally Rotten? The Pensacola News via Newspapers.com, 7 Dec. 1977, https://www.newspapers.com/image/265300424/. Shellow, Sadie Myers. How to Develop Your Personality. Harper, 1932. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Develop_Your_Personality/QhNWAAAAMAAJ. Claim:  A private citizen paid over $100,000 to run a full-page ad in the Washington Post defining himself and his Republican values. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] $104,655.60 Ad in the Washington Post Here is someone with the money to fund a rebuttal to what Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, said recently that many Republicans have never done an honest day's work in their life. The following full page ad was placed in the Washington Post by a businessman named George J. Esseff, Sr. He paid $104,655.60 to run the ad and only did it because he is sick and tired of the way that "the rich" areportrayed by liberals these days. It is a great read.  You're a Republican???  In todays America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, "What is a Republican?", and you'll be told ". . . a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment . . . the working poor and all whom they exploit . . ." I am a Republican . . .  I am none of those things . . . and I dont know any Republicans who are. WHAT I AM . . .  first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who's proud of his country. . . and his country's heritage. WHAT I AM . . . is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.  WHAT I AM . . .  is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less. WHAT I AM . . .  is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life. WHAT I AM . . .  is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the privilege of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones. WHAT I AM . . . is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears . . . and plenty of them . . . made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country. WHAT I AM  . . . is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country . . . and all for which it stands.  WHAT I AM . . . is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in todays world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them . . . and the eyes of those who give them. WHAT I AM . . . is an American who's proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as "politically incorrect" as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted . . . and it must be defeated. WHAT I AM . . . is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments. WHAT I AM . . . is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and "political incorrectness" in her character. WHAT I AM . . .  is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent. WHAT I AM . . . is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn. WHAT I AM . . . is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit. WHAT I AM . . . is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated "entertainers" who have appointed themselves "experts" in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions . . . much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.  WHAT I AM . . . is an American who understands the difference between "censorship" and "choice". Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same "celebrities" receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is "Censorship!". What they seem incapable of understanding is . . . the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended . . . as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to . . . and refuse to support those I don't. It is my right as an American . . . a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.  WHAT I AM  . . . is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of "attack ads" and "negative campaigning" . . . and the news media who allow them to get away with it.  WHAT I AM  . . . is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith . . . and who's been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what's best for them  . . . rather than what's right . . .  often times at the expense of many . . . including our national security. WHAT I AM  . . . is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That's why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed. WHAT I AM  . . . is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America's war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure. WHAT I AM . . . is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless, who, though not always successful, has continually strived to do "what's right" instead of "what's easy". A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of "what's right" and "what's wrong", but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.  WHAT I AM . . . is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a "double homicide" but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, "pro-choice". WHAT I AM . . . is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary "leadership" qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state's 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the "conservative" nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply . . . as well it should you. WHAT I AM . . . is a man who feels the need to spend, $104,655.60 (tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world's poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that . . . and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick . . . and continue to do so . . . and I'm not alone in that work. WHAT I AM . . . is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, " . . . the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government". For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.  WHAT I AM . . . is a man who understands, "the American way of life" is a message of self-empowerment for all.  WHAT I AM . . . is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement. WHAT I AM . . . is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it. WHAT I AM . . . is blessed to be an American . . . and proud to be Republican. For a free reprint of this "Open Letter," go to www.whatiam.net Origins:   On Wednesday, 20 October 2004, the above-quoted text appeared as a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post.  It was paid for by 74-year-old George Esseff of Westlake Village, California, who shelled out $104,655.60 of his own money to run the ad explaining himself and his Republican values to the Post's approximately 740,000 weekday readers.  (As noted at the end of the ad, its text was simultaneously posted on the web  at www.whatiam.net.) www.whatiam.net According to the Ventura County Star, the idea for the ad came to Mr. Esseff "in the middle of a sleepless night," because he "had been wounded by recent rhetoric painting Republicans as greedy egotists exploiting the poor and the environment" and was "tired of being treated like a doormat by news media."  He deliberately placed the ad in the Washington Post, which is generally considered a liberal newspaper, because he was interested in getting his message out to "left-of-center or undecided voters" in the days before the 2004 presidential election.  While I was researching this piece, I was surprised to find that Mr. Esseff is in fact a neighbor of ours (in the sense that he lives in the town adjacent to the one where we reside).   I also discovered that when he noted in his ad that he has "used [his] earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick," he was not exaggerating  among his many charitable efforts, George Esseff and his wife, Rosemary, donated over $1 million towards the construction of a low-income housing complex in my hometown of Thousand Oaks, California. Last updated:  3 August 2005    Sources:   Cason, Colleen.  "Man's Ad Sings Praises of GOP."   Ventura County Star.  27 October 2004. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and ended 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights. While many people took to the streets to protest the ruling, others used social media to share fantasy scenarios of protesting by other means. On TikTok, for example, some people fantasized about someone mailing their uterus to the Supreme Court as an act of protest: overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision   While the above-displayed video described a potential future action ("I need to mail" vs. "I mailed"), other TikTok users shared videos claiming that someone had indeed followed through with this action.   While a number of TikTok users claimed that someone literally sent their uterus to the Supreme Court, there's no actual evidence that this happened.  Protests against the Supreme Court in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling garnered plenty of coverage by mainstream media outlets. If someone truly had one if their organs removed, put it in a box, sent their innards to the Supreme Court, and there were actual evidence of this, there would certainly be news coverage of the incident. However, no credible news outlets have filed any such reports.  Roe v. Wade While there are plenty of videos on TikTok of people making this claim, none of them contain images of the alleged package or the identity of the alleged sender. In fact, most of the TikTok videos that we viewed involve imagining what it would be like for an employee of the Supreme Court to open such a package.     The claim that someone mailed their uterus to the Supreme Court is part of a larger trend on TikTok involving users claiming that some extreme action was taken by someone to protest the abortion ruling. For example, another string of videos claimed (without evidence) that the several Supreme Court justices had had their credit card numbers leaked. Social media users also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses of the justices had been leaked.  another string of videos claimed also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses Sources: Fact Check: Posted IP Addresses NOT Linked To 5 Supreme Court Judges -- They Belong To Unrelated Entities | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/06/fact-check-ip-addresses-not-linked-to-five-supreme-court-justices.html. Accessed 30 June 2022. Sullivan, Becky. With Roe Overturned, State Constitutions Are Now at the Center of the Abortion Fight. NPR, 29 June 2022. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108251712/roe-v-wade-abortion-ruling-state-constitutions. On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Donald Trump Mike Pence Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris  the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. George Floyd For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Factba.se transcription Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund  do you know that is?  which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office.  Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: "Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage." Sen. Tom Cotton tweet   Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. one conservative website Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.  including many celebrities more than $30 million accounts "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota," she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. @MNFreedomFund   In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media  or via any other public statement  that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed "Minnesota Freedom Fund"  debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Federal Election Commission Center for Responsive Politics Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: "No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris." We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) has pledged Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case  or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest  they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: inequities states Weve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge  and we wont now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness  People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice  Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyds death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings  whether chaotic or peaceful  did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail  and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. American Bail Coalition The Washington Post "We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way," the MFF website said. "[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising werent detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail." said However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. AK-47-style mini Draco pistol woman The Washington Post news reports Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July  a case that was unrelated to the protests  was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to "strengthen our internal procedures" to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. news reports statement In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters "get out of jail and do more damage," like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law. During the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, 2011, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman touted his record on taxes. When he was governor, he said, Utah had historic tax cuts. We created a flat tax in the state of Utah, exactly what needs to happen in this country.This isnt the first time Huntsman has made that claim. Our PolitiFact team in New Hampshirechecked a similar comment Huntsmanmadeat a July 4th, 2011, house party in Belmont, N.H. At that July 4 event, Huntsman said that when he was governor, he worked with the state Legislature to create a flat tax that cut income taxes by 30 percent.Since Huntsman didnt repeat the claim that this tax changes had cut income taxes by 30 percent, we will only rate him now on the question of whether his administration created a flat tax in the state of Utah.When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how Huntsman began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005.We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens, but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states, Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005.Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years.When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent.This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most of the deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bond income or deducting from income the withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts.The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utahs new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people do. )Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit from state taxes some of what they claim as deductions and tax exemptions under the federal tax code. The credit phases out and goes away from those making very high incomes in the state.This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis.There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study.Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax.The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some minor blemishes' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch. )While we gave Huntsman a Mostly False for his previous statement, most of our downgrade stemmed from our criticism of his claim that his policies cut income taxes by 30 percent. The system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasnt a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors. But it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax -- a single rate for all income groups. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True. The M-16, a rapid-fire, 5.56 mm assault rifle carried by thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War, grew out of efforts to develop a replacement for the standard M-1 Carbine used during World War II. The M-16 (originally designed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite as the AR-15) was constructed using plastics and alloys and was a much smaller and lighter weapon than its predecessors, one that fit in with the developing Vietnam-era strategy of less emphasis on long-range accuracy in favor of more easily-carried weapons with rapid rates of fire. M-16, Hundreds of thousands of M-16s were supplied to U.S. troops in the mid-1960s as US Army made the M-16 their standard rifle: Example:  [Morgan and Tucker, 1987] The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, soldiers noticed the toy company's logo embossed on the handgrip and complained. Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. However, the M-16, manufactured by the Colt Firearms Corporation (who bought the rights from Armalite in 1959), soon developed a reputation for unreliability, frequently jamming and fouling (especially when not kept clean, a next-to-impossible task in the dust and mud of Vietnam battlefields). Problems with the M-16 eventually achieved such prominence that a congressional inquiry was ordered, resulting in design changes, additional troop training, and other modifications that ameliorated many of the reliability issues U.S. troops were experiencing with the weapon: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered. This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam. The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment  including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles. A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. To the troops in the field, the original M-16 was new, it was small, it was light, it was made of plastic rather than wood, and it often performed poorly to boot. It was no surprise that many of them started expressing their dissatisfaction by referring to it derisively as a cheaply-made "toy," and that they associated it with the most prominent toy company of the time: Mattel, the Hawthorne, California, toy manufacturer famous for introducing the Barbie doll to the world: Mattel One of the sayings soldiers had about the M16 was, "You can tell it's Mattel" which was a toy company's slogan at the time  the gun had a lot of plastic parts, which can't stand up to the vibrations like wood can but it is cheap. The Mattel legend was undoubtedly fed by the fact that Mattel really did sell an  M-16 Marauder toy gun in the mid-1960s, a quite good reproduction of the actual weapon, complete with "realistic" sound effects:  M-16 Marauder     The sardonic joke about problem-plagued M-16s being toys morphed into a legend about their really having been produced by a toy company, with "proof" offered in the additional detail of soldier's spotting M-16 handgrips embossed with the Mattel logo. The redesign that improved the M-16's reliability was then attributed to a switch in manufacturers (to a "real" gun company) prompted by soldier complaints. Chivers, C.J. "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?"
The New York Times. 2 November 2009. Morgan, Hal and Tucker, Kerry. More Rumor!
New York: Penguin Books, 1987. ISBN 0-14-009720-1 (pp. 175-176).