The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Tampa Bay Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tampa Bay Times. Show all posts

Thursday, April 27, 2017

100 Days Of Lies, Shiftiness, And Creating A Mess

On February 28, in a joint session of Congress Trump used the following rhetoric:  "I inherited a mess..." As you will see and hear in the upcoming video (mere seconds in length) he repeated the rhetoric and continues to repeat the rhetoric equal to the number of times he lies (about everything).

On March 1, Tampa Bay Times, Politifact, published eight charts which totally refute Trumps "mess" lie.  

Of course, if you visited the PolitiFact link, and if you are a person who knows Trump as the pathological liar (or a serial liar), you were not surprised about his quoting information which was flat out lies. As his number two White House presstitute, KellyAnn Conway declared earlier in the year, Trumps quotes "alternative facts."

Alternative facts - Wikipedia

"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance at Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States.

As we move away from Trump's November 2016 win of enough electoral votes (as declared by cable news hosts and print media). Most Americans (even Trump supporters) have grown to recognize Trump is without question a major liar. His cognitive processes seem to initiate with an inclination divergent of the truth to the point of finding it impossible to believe anything he says. Moreover, he has chosen close advisers who either share the same first inclination to lie or he hired proven too-of-the-line liars to deliver his agenda (as discombobulated as it is). The rational person has to only consider Sean Spicer and Conway as prime examples while knowing each would hire and, or, promote staffers who share the paradigm; thus the uncomplimentary title of "presstitute." 

Thus Trump's "mess" claims should have been anticipated. Actually, the mantra should have been expected.

But there is much more to this story. 

Politifact has recently published a piece with an update of the online publication's Trump-o-Meter. Of 398 statements from the carnival barking president, the Politifact analysis shows a total skewering towards that scale which indicates untruth, lies, or absence of veracity (If those words make you feel better).  

If you didn't notice, here is a summary via Politifact:
Truth-O-Meter: Pants on Fire - 16%, False - 33%Mostly False - 20%, Half True - 15%, Mostly True - 12%, True - 4%
Not 16% if Trump's statements yielded a degree of truth.

Yes, the lies continue to mount. Since we almost came to a point of a government shutdown due to Trump's obtuse and irrational leverage of holding-off on his approval of funding if the funding did not include funding for his wall, it should be noted Trump's mantra on Illegal entry into the US via the southern border is exaggerated.

Politifact ( outflow of immigrants?)
Kind "We're experiencing a net outflow of illegal, undocumented workers from America back to Mexico."  
— Ron Kind on Thursday, February 16th, 2017 in a radio interview
"We're experiencing a net outflow of illegal, undocumented workers from America back to Mexico," U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, said Feb. 16, 2017 on Wisconsin Public Radio. "To build a wall now would be locking them in this country."
As stated in the opening of this piece, we are approaching Trump's 100 Days in the Oval Office. In addition to witnessing the new dynamic of Paul Ryan on my television monitor on consecutive days speaking with a reference to or touting Trumps 100 days, Politifact dug into the first 100 and their findings aren't so good. Ryan's effort to place a positive spin on Trump's non-Mar-A-Lago days at work just doesn't work for anyone who views the GOP with any level of concern.

The Politifact link is, here. But, let's take a look at an image from the piece.

We know Trump;s lack of veracity is well-known and it is proven to be a fact on a daily basis.  What is so very startling is that old axiom of blood is thicker than water.  All of Trump's relatives (natural or via marriage) Know he is the consummate serial liar. They know it as surely as they sit for their wealth briefings on a monthly basis. "Blood as thicker than water" is fine, but also troublesome when the "water" is the United States as a leading international player. 

All of Trump's close staffers also know of his devotion to the "untruth."

When do we, the people, get to a point of refusal to accept continued lying at the level we see from Trump and his White House?

No, Trump did not inherit a mess. He inherited a robust and recovering economy, he inherited no troop laden wars overseas, he inherited critical federal environmental protections, and he inherited an Oval Office which President Obama restored (post Bush) to an office of international respect.


Sunday, August 28, 2016

And They Say Hillary Cannot Be Trusted?

Why the Lord of the Lies?  Despite the fact Hillary Clinton is (always) referred to as "they don't trust her, Trump is a far greater liar. In fact, the rational personal can assume the first utterance for trump will always be a lie, misinformation, or an exaggeration. 

Truth-o-meter 2016 Fact-checking-2016-Clinton-Trump

Bill Moyers dot com published a piece this past spring that pretty well sums-up Trump.

"This post was first published on" Staff.

Why Trump Can Lie and No One Seems to Care

The GOP candidate gets away with outrageous, contradictory statements because the mainstream media and the public let him.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gives a speech during a rally at the The Northwest Washington Fair and Event Center on May 7, 2016, in Lynden, Washington. (Photo by Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images)

Donald Trump is a serial liar. Okay, to be a bit less Trumpian about it, he has trouble with the truth. If you look at Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site that examines candidates’ pronouncements for accuracy, 76 percent of Trump’s statements are rated either “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire,” which is to say off-the-charts false. By comparison, Hillary Clinton’s total is 29 percent.
But if Trump doesn’t cotton much to the truth, he doesn’t seem to cotton much to his own ideas, either. He waffles, flip-flops and obfuscates, sometimes changing positions from one press appearance to the next, as Peter Alexander reported on NBC Nightly News this past Monday — a rare television news critique of Trump.
I say “rare” because most of the time, as Glenn Kessler noted in The Washington Post this week, MSM — the mainstream media —  just sit back and let Trump unleash his whoppers without any pushback, even as they criticize his manners and attitude.
In an ordinary political season, perhaps Trump would be under fire for his habitual untruths, like the one that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. This time around, though, neither the media nor the public — least of all his supporters — seem to care. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that these days, as far as our political discourse goes, truth, logic, reason and consistency don’t seem to count for very much.
The question is why.
One simple explanation is that Trump has changed the rules. He is not a politician but a provocateur, and he isn’t held to the same standards as Clinton or Bernie Sanders or even Cruz, all of whom actually have policies. For Trump, policies are beside the point.
… Truth, logic, reason and consistency don’t seem to count for very much. The question is why.
Another explanation is that long before Trump, social scientists observed that truth matters less to people than reinforcement, and that most of us have the ability to reformulate misstatements into truth so long as they conform to our own biases. We believe what we believe, and we are not changing even in the face of opposing facts (without this capacity for self-deception there would be no Fox News).
There is, however, another and even more terrifying explanation as to why the truth doesn’t seem to matter. It has less to do with Trump or our own proclivities to reshape reality than it has to do with infotainment — with the idea that a lot of information isn’t primarily about education or elevation, where truth matters, but entertainment, where it doesn’t. You might call it “the Winchell Effect.”
US news commentator, drama critic and gossip columnist Walter Winchell (1897 - 1972), making a radio broadcast.  (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
US news commentator, drama critic and gossip columnist Walter Winchell (1897 – 1972), making a radio broadcast. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
Walter Winchell, about whom I wrote a 1994 biography, was a hugely popular New York-based gossip columnist for the Hearst newspaper chain and an equally popular radio personality, although saying that is a little like saying that Michael Jordan was a basketball player. Winchell was thegossip columnist, with an estimated daily audience of 50 million. He practically invented the form, and the form was a long chain of snippets — rumor, prediction, innuendo — racing down the page, separated by ellipses.
Some of these snippets were scarcely more than a noun, a verb and an object: Mr. So-and-so is “that way” about Miss So-and-so. Does her husband know? In this way, Winchell became not only the minimalist master of gossip but also, quite possibly, the first tweeter – before Twitter.
If you are wondering how this is relevant to the 2016 campaign, in time Winchell turned his roving eye from entertainment to politics, deploying exactly the same arsenal to the latter as he had to the former. Thus did gossip leap the tracks from Hollywood and Broadway to Washington. In this, Winchell’s approach was a precursor of modern election coverage. He was obsessed with letting readers in on what was going to happen — the clairvoyance of rumor — rather than with what was happening or what it actually meant. That is, he was a horse-race handicapper long before horse-race coverage became the dominant form of political journalism.
One prominent example: At the behest of the White House, Winchell spent months floating trial balloons for Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ambitions for a third term. Basically, it was presidentially endorsed gossip.
But Winchell’s influence didn’t stop at conflating entertainment with politics — and this is where the indifference to truth comes in. Winchell reported dozens of tidbits of gossip each day. Presumably, that’s why people read him or listened to him on the radio; they wanted to be ahead of the curve. But the vast majority of these tidbits were unverifiable, and nearly half of the flashes that were verifiable turned out to be false, according to a survey conducted for a six-part New Yorker profile of Winchell by St. Clair McKelway. Since there was always a passel of new scoops every day, no one seemed to notice — or care — that he was usually wrong.
One can only assume this was because readers seemed to relish the excitement of the “news” more than they desired its accuracy. Or, to put it another way, gossip was entertainment, not information. Thus the Winchell Effect.
The Winchell Effect is alive and well in today’s politics in two respects. First, candidates can get away with saying pretty much anything they want without being held accountable so long as what they say is entertaining and so long as they keep the comments coming. Trump has been the major beneficiary of this disinclination by the MSM to examine statements. The blast of his utterances always supersedes their substance. And the MSM plays along.
To wit: Trump announced his tax plan way back in September 2015. With kudos to the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, which did look at his plan, it is just this week that most of the MSM are getting around to examining it — even as he changes it. (I may have missed it, but I still have yet to see a single story delving into Trump’s tax policies on the network news.)
The blast of his utterances always supersedes their substance. And the MSM plays along.
Perhaps better late than never, but the fact that he could throw out wild schemes involving trillions of dollars without the media feeling the need to vet them means that primary voters had no way to understand his tax plan and see its flaws. Of course, from the MSM’s perspective, analyzing a plan would be tackling policy, not providing entertainment. And make no mistake, the candidate and the mainstream media are in the entertainment business.
And that is the second way in which the Winchell Effect changes our politics. If candidates are not accountable, neither are the political media. Like Winchell, they are not only besotted with strategies, polls, predictions, and — in the case of a few cable networks — wild, unverifiable charges, they are, like Winchell, seldom challenged when they get it all wrong.
They were wrong about Trump not being a serious candidate. They were wrong about Jeb Bush’s and Marco Rubio’s chances to get the nomination. They were wrong about the likelihood of a contested GOP convention. Since they won’t call one another out, no one calls them out. In effect, they are implicated in the Winchell Effect as much as Trump is, which may be one reason why they don’t challenge him. Neither Trump nor the press has to be right. They just have to keep ginning up the excitement.


Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Timemagazine's non-fiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a senior fellow at The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Kerry Fact Checked

Fact-checking the July 20 news shows

By Aaron Sharockman
Published on Sunday, July 20th, 2014 at 5:47 p.m.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on all five major Sunday news shows making a strong case that Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists were responsible for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and that Russia is complicit in the separatists’ actions.
"Russia has armed the separatists. Russia has trained the separatists," Kerry told ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos.
On all five Sunday programs, Kerry listed a litany of circumstantial evidence connecting Russia to the separatists operating in eastern Ukraine, and then connecting the separatists to the shooting down of the Boeing 777 passenger jet.
While some of Kerry’s comments relied on intelligence reports that we are unable to see, Kerry did say separatists bragged about shooting down an aircraft on social media.
"We know that very shortly thereafter, separatists were bragging in the social media about having shot down a transport plane," Kerry said on Fox News Sunday. "We know that the so-called defense minister of the People's Republic of Donetsk, Mr. Igor Strelkov, actually posted a bragging social media posting of having shot down a military transport. And then when it became apparent it was civilian, they pulled it down from social media."
Kerry’s recounting of the posts of Strelkov largely checks out.
The U.S. State Department confirmed that the post Kerry was referring to came from Strelkov’s profile on VKontakte, Russia’s version of Facebook. The post was uploaded about 30 minutes after the Malaysia Airlines flight crashed and talked about a military transport plane being shot down.
"We have warned them – not to fly ‘in our sky’," the post said, linking to two videos showing some sort of explosion from a distance that are similar to other videos of the Malaysia Airlines crash.
The post has since been deleted, leading Kerry and others to conclude that it was removed after Strelkov realized that it was a civilian plane. Strelkov says the information in the post came from members of the separatists movement and that the announcement about the transport plane going down was not an official one.
It’s impossible to know with certainty Strelkov's role in the post, or when the post was pulled, but we do know that it came from within the separatist movement -- as Strelkov himself said. So we rate Kerry’s claim Mostly True.
In between interviews, Kerry was caught on an open microphone talking to an aide about Israel’s military incursion into Gaza. "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation," Kerry was heard telling the aide, a description that many interpreted to contradict Israel's claims that its military operations in Gaza are narrowly focused. Kerry struggled to explain his comments to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.
"It’s tough to have these kind of operations. I reacted, obviously, in a way that anybody does with respect to young children and civilians," Kerry said.
On Meet the PressKerry was asked to defend the record of President Barack Obama’s administration abroad. Kerry ticked off a list of accomplishments.
"The facts could not be more clear. The United States of America has never been more engaged in helping to lead in more places than we are now," Kerry said. "I just came back from China where we are engaged with the Chinese in dealing with North Korea. You will notice since the visit last year, North Korea has been quieter. We haven't done what we want to do yet with respect to the de-nuclearization, but we are working on that moving forward. With respect to Syria, we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out."
We wanted to check Kerry’s assertion that the United States got "100 percent" of the chemical weapons out of Syria.
It was an ambitious goal set by the United States with the cooperation of Russia. And in large measure, it was met.
On June 23, 2014, Ahmet Üzümcü, director general of the United Nations body in charge, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, declared a major benchmark had been cleared.
"The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura," Üzümcü said.
Paul Walker, a long-time chemical weapons inspector with the Green Cross, an independent security group, called this an historic accomplishment. But Walker said the job wasn’t done. "Syria must still clarify a number of reported discrepancies in its official declaration to the OPCW, including the exact amounts of its declared chemical weapons stockpile, its facilities, and the history of its program development," Walker said in a statement.
Walker also noted that Syria still had 12 locations where chemical weapons had been stored or made that should be dismantled.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said Syria had agreed to measures to deal with some of those facilities, but not all. A further mission was underway. According to press reports, until that work was done, the agency could not say for certain that Syria was free of all chemical weapons.
Lauren Carroll, Jon Greenberg and Linda Qiu contributed to this report. Aaron Sharockman is editor of

Sunday, July 13, 2014

"Just the Facts" Politifacts "Top 5" 2014 Rulings

We realize that some progressive writers and publications have followed Rachel Maddow's criticism of Politifact and stopped using the Tampa Bay Times fact checker division. Politifacts factually blows their assignment of ruling's from time to time. Maddow and her team adroitly pointed out a case or two where the fact checker was flat out wrong in its analysis. Wrong happens and has also (rarely) hit the Maddow Show, 

Fact checkers are very important in our age of political trickery, propaganda and outright manipulation for the purpose of political advantage. The entities also shed light of flawed personalities who have managed to win elections and use their elected offices as a platform for spewing lies. Of course, the Internet forces without questions utility for fact checkers. You only have to read one chain email to recognize how such misinformation and lies travel in the underground of the Internet.

Opinion writers on the Right often comment that Politifact is left-leaning. A charge that is an easy sell to willing believers based simply on the fact (pun intended) the vast majority of Pants on Fire rulings emanate from the Right. The criticism is a false assertion also based on the fact the Left also garners Pants on Fire rulings. I believe the 2013 "Lie Of The Year" was President Obama's "You Can Keep Your Plan" claims regarding the Affordable Care Act. 

From another perspective, if you follow this link and view a few Pants on Fires, you will find the ruling is more often assigned on the Right.

We are just over half through 2014 and Politifact has developed a list of its Top Five most popular Fact checks for the year.

Politifacts Top 5......

Top 5 most popular fact-checks for June 2014

Published on Friday, July 11th, 2014 at 9:56 a.m.
Here are PolitiFact’s top 5 most viewed fact-checks of June 2014, counting down to the most popular item.

5. More than 500 Guantanamo detainees were released or transferred under Bush

We fact-checked this claim five years ago, but it got a second life this month because of the swap of American prisoner of war Sgt. Bowe Berghdal for the release of five Taliban officials from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on June 16, 2009, "Some 500 detainees were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration."

Several government documents backed up the fact that 500 Guantanamo detainees had been moved from the prison under former President George W. Bush. Our only quibble with Hoyer was his use of the word "released" -- some of the 500 were released, while others were transferred to another country. We rated his claim Mostly True.

4. Ted Cruz: 'U.S. policy has changed, now we make deals with terrorists'

When President Barack Obama announced that Bergdahl was freed by his Taliban captors after five years in custody, critics were quick to jump on his decision to release the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Later that week, White House national security adviser Susan Rice said Obama was justified because the United States was at war with Bergdahl’s captors, even if it wasn’t in the traditional sense. But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took exception to that characterization and said Obama changed "decades" of policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

We found that even though presidents and officials often say "we do not negotiate with terrorists," it has not proven to be a hard-and-fast rule. Obama’s actions so far do not signal a change in policy, but rather the latest in a long line of exceptions presidents have made throughout recent history. (The list includes former presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.) We rated Cruz’s statement Mostly False.

3. A video of Barack Obama speech was edited to change his meaning

A reader recently asked us to look at a YouTube video clip of Obama that puzzled them. The brief video showed Obama giving a speech in which he said, "And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build, ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."

The clip came from an address to European youth at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels on March 26, 2014. But while the clip comes from a genuine White House video, it has been edited to make an entirely different point than the one Obama was making -- Rather, he was saying that these sentiments run counter to the ideals of free will and democracy. The statement in the chain email video was spliced together in a way that twists Obama’s argument beyond recognition, so we rated it Pants on Fire.

Bonus: Check out our video showing the truncated version compared with the original speech here.

2. Have there been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook?

A striking statistic about school shootings made its rounds on the Internet this month. It said that at least 74 school shootings had occurred since December 2012, when an assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School left 28 dead. The statistic came from Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The figure is accurate only if you use a broad definition of "school shooting" that includes such incidents as suicides, accidents and spillover from adjacent criminal activity. The figure has some value in quantifying the proximity of guns to school campuses, but the group makes a significant stretch by tying the statistic so closely to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook. By doing this, the group closely associates the statistic with planned mass shootings targeting students and school staff -- a category that, using a more strict definition, accounts for only 10 of the 74 incidents.

The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rated it Mostly False.

1. Did Barack Obama sign a bill to forgive all outstanding student debt? No

In early June, a reader pointed us to a shocking headline circulating in chain emails and social media posts -- "Obama Signs Bill Forgiving All Student Loan Debt." It sounded too good to be true, at least from the students’ point of view, and it turned out to be a satirical article from the website,Empire News.

While Obama has taken executive action and called for passage of a student-loan refinancing bill now pending in the Senate, he didn’t say he was planning to forgive all student debts -- a far more massive undertaking. The claim is ridiculously false, so we rated it Pants on Fire.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Politifact Reviewed Napolitanos Ridiculous anti-Lincoln (book hawking) Drivel

Re-post from Tampa Bay Times-Politifact Dot Com. Last week we posted a piece related to Jon Stewart's interview with Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano is a noted Fox News demagogue who frequently sits with various Fox News hosts and spews Obama Derangement drivel like a burst Hoover Dam. He rarely speaks comment that is based in fact, and his comments about Abe Lincoln and US slavery follows suit.

Politifact performed a deep probe into Napolitano's rhetoric and found complete rubbish. The picture posted by Politifact represents the same person in the Jon Stewart video (above). It seems the "judge" has applied some "made for TV" transformations.
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

 Says President Abraham Lincoln "tried to arm the slaves."
Andrew Napolitano on Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 in a broadcast of "The Daily Show"

Napolitano: Lincoln tried to arm the slaves
Pants on Fire!

In the libertarian view, it is the right of the oppressed to rise up against their oppressors. Accordingly, while Andrew Napolitano argued with host Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that President Abraham Lincoln should have avoided war with the Confederacy, he said the slaves should have fought.
Napolitano: "If the slaves had gone to war against their slave owners, and I had been alive, I would have been with them. I would have helped finance, fund and lead that revolt." 
Stewart: Are you familiar with slavery?"
Napolitano: "I am very familiar with it." 
Stewart: "That is not the option." 
Napolitano: "No, no, no. Lincoln tried to arm the slaves." 
We tried to find out what lies behind Napolitano’s claim that Lincoln tried to arm the slaves, but we never heard from the judge or his staff. 
We turned to Bruce Levine, a Civil War historian at the University of Illinois. 
"I know of no evidence -- have never even heard it said -- that Lincoln himself tried to arm those who were still slaves to enable a slave insurrection -- and I very strongly doubt that any such evidence exists," Levine said. 
Levine said an early draft of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation included the idea that if the slaves rose up, Union troops would do nothing to stop them. But that disappeared from the final version. 
"Because even that was considered too politically incendiary," Levine said. 
There is one way that the statement might be said to have some truth, though it's a stretch. As the war got underway, some people in slavery were able to get away and seek refuge with Union troops. This created a legal quandary for some commanders because under federal law, these people were still the property of their owners. 
Congress provided legal cover in two steps. In 1861, it passed the First Confiscation Act, which allowed Union soldiers to treat these people as property seized by the government. The act did not set them free but it did strip the owners of any claim to them if they had been put to work on "any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever." 
In 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, which went further. For slaveholders who sided with the Confederacy, any slave that came under Union control "shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves." This step actually troubled Lincoln who was uneasy about its constitutionality. 
The act went further and authorized Lincoln to "employ as many persons of African descent as he may deem necessary and proper for the suppression of this rebellion, and for this purpose he may organize and use them in such manner as he may judge best for the public welfare." 
Columbia historian Eric Foner, who appeared on the The Daily Show with Stewart and Napolitano, told PunditFact that Congress’ intent was clear. 
"Congress authorized Lincoln to use blacks in any capacity he chose -- laborers, soldiers, etc.," Foner said. "In the fall, the War Department authorized raising black troops on the Sea Islands of South Carolina, under the command of the white abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson." 
Because this preceded the Emancipation Proclamation by several months, it could be argued that these newly liberated people were slaves armed by the Union, but that seems like a legal stretch and hardly what people hearing Napolitano’s comments would conclude. 
In one interesting twist, the Confederacy did try to arm slaves, Levine said. It took place late in the war and was extremely controversial. A month before the South surrendered, the Confederate Congress allowed slave owners to donate their slaves to the cause. In contrast to the Union laws, these people would not become free. The effort remained small and went nowhere. 
Our ruling Napolitano said that Lincoln tried to arm the slaves. Napolitano provided no supporting proof and no historian we contacted knew of any such effort by the president. The Union efforts to strip Confederate slave owners of their legal claims to enslaved people ultimately led to the formation of units of black soldiers. While these men might not have enjoyed clear legal status as free men, they could not be called slaves.
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.