Were These Monstrous Paws Photographed in Alabama?
A somewhat disturbing image of an unknown animal's feet has been circulating online for several years, alongside a variety of claims about its origins. In March 2018, the photograph was re-purposed and shared as if the creature whose prints it captured had been spotted recently on a game trail in Cleburne County, Alabama: photograph   We have not been able to identify the source of this photograph. However, the claims made in recent Facebook posts about it are false: This picture was not taken in March 2018, and the animal it captured traces of (if any) did not destroy a trail camera or kill an Alabama farmer's livestock. This image has been online since at least as far back as October 2015, when it was shared on Instagram along with a story about a sailor in Oman who was "shocked" to find the image on his camera. This photograph has also been used to illustrate similar stories about a strange creature that was supposedly found in India, Brazil, andHawaii. Needless to say, we're skeptical that this exact same photograph was pulled from cameras in so many different locations and times. Instagram India Brazil Hawaii So what does this picture actually show? While this image is frequently claimed to depict evidence of a lobisomem, South America's version of a werewolf, we're fairly certain that this is a dog (or another extant species) suffering from mange: "Mange (demodicosis) is an inflammatory disease in dogs caused by various types of the Demodex mite. When the number of mites inhabiting the hair follicles and skin of the dog become exorbitant, it can lead to skin lesions, genetic disorders, problems with the immune system and hair loss (alopecia)." mange In fact, the paws in this viral photograph closely resemble a 2014 photograph taken by the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham, UK, of a dog suffering from a severe case of sarcoptic mange: photograph
Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. Claim:  President Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase  the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed. It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! Origins:  The availability of health care and the associated costs of medical care, prescription drugs, and insurance are a major issue in every campaign, especially among older voters.  With premiums for the government-funded Medicare program scheduled to rise from $66.60 to $78.20 per month in January 2005 (a 17.4% increase over current levels, and 56 percent higher than the premiums charged in 2001), both sides in the upcoming presidential election are seeking the upper hand on the issue. Medicare Democrats have maintained that the Bush administration bears much of the responsibility for the increase in premiums because it has done little to control health costs and had directed too much Medicare money to the managed health care industry, and Democratic nominee John Kerry's campaign aired a commercial that (incorrectly) implied that President Bush  was responsible for the increase in Medicare premiums ("George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history . . .").  President Bush's campaign countered by running a TV spot that (incorrectly) stated Senator Kerry had "voted five times to raise Medicare premiums": Republicans had hoped to emphasize their support of Medicare in this campaign season, after making herculean efforts to pass legislation adding drug benefits to the health program for 41 million people who are elderly or disabled. But the new law, signed by Bush in December, has met mixed reviews. The drug benefits, representing the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, do not become available until 2006, and the increase in premiums has nothing to do with the new drug coverage. Beneficiaries will have to pay an additional premium, expected to average $35 a month in 2006, for drug benefits. The Bush campaign advertisement, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," says, "It was Mr. Kerry who voted five times to raise Medicare premiums." The votes, from 1985 to 1997, were not on premiums alone, but on comprehensive budget bills that included hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare and scores of other federal programs. Like most political issues, health care is a complex subject that has been shaped and affected by many different pieces of legislation, and no one person or political party is solely responsible for the rise in Medicare premiums.  Those interested in trying to follow the bouncing ball and track the origins of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums may find this article helpful. article Last updated:  12 October 2004    Sources:    Pear, Robert and Carl Hulse.  "Medicare Costs Are New Focus for Candidates."   The New York Times.  12 September 2004  (p. 1).     The [Pottstown] Mercury.  "Health Care a Passionate Issue for Candidates."   1 October 2004. On 1 October 2017, pseudoscientific alternative health website NaturalNews.com, which is geared primarily toward supplement enthusiasts with a discerning taste for deep state conspiracy theories, posted an article ("Dont Look Now, But Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012") that attempts to cast doubt on the scientific veracity of global warming by first presenting the following grotesque caricature of a straw man argument: article straw man One of the most popular pieces of "evidence" that climate alarmists just love to bring up to prove the global warming narrative is the "all the ice is melting in the Arctic and the polar bears are dying" line. Weve all seen the documentaries where a polar bear is desperately clinging to a tiny piece of ice and you just know hes going to die soon. They article then presents two observations that make the generally factual point that there has been relatively more sea ice in the Arctic and glacial ice on Greenland in 2017 than there have been at specific times in the recent past: The latest figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, located at the University of Colorado, show that sea ice extent has increased by 40 percent since 2012. [...] [The Danish Polar Portal reports that]: If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981 from low to high, the lowest on record was 2011-2012 (38 Gt) and this year is the 5th highest out of the 37 year record. Danish Polar Portal To be clear, the primary data scientists use to document global warming are records of Earth's temperature over time, not doomed polar bear imagery. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist for the independent, nongovernmental Berkeley Earth research group told us in an e-mail that, in this area, pretty much "all groups who provide estimates" of global temperature unequivocally point to nearly uninterrupted temperature rises since the 1970s, as shown in this comparison of various estimates produced by the climate and energy policy website Carbon Brief: Zeke Hausfather produced   "People interested in global warming are best-served looking at actual global temperatures," Hausfather said. While this temperature trend is uncontroversial and clear, the climate system as a whole is a complex beast with numerous entangled parts. The basic approach to writing a blog post that "debunks" the concept of global warming is to highlight without explanation various parts of that system at a single point in time. NaturalNews.com is no exception to that basic strategy here. Arctic Sea Ice Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated: stated Arctic sea ice extent is up 40% from this date five years ago. "Sea ice extent" is one of many different metrics used to characterize the presence of sea ice, and is generally defined as "the area of ocean [based on pixels in satellite imagery] where at least 15 percent of the surface is frozen". On the day of 17 September 2017, sea ice extent was indeed higher than it was on 17 September 2012: defined   This does not mean, however, that sea ice has grown almost 40 percent since 2012, nor does it mean that the overall trend in arctic sea ice is toward growth  it hasn't and it isn't. The issue here is that sea ice extent is quite variable from year to year, and thus looking at two discrete points is a fairly useless exercise without the full context. "We don't expect it to monotonically decrease every year," Hausfather told us.  This chart (using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center) shows September sea ice extent compared against the same average used in the maps cited by Climate Depot, showing both this aforementioned variability but also an overall trend of reduced ice extent. Note that the year 2012 was no random year to select for comparison; it is actually the record lowest year in terms of Arctic sea ice extent  making anything compared to it necessarily higher: from   The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point: Polar Science Center   In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year's record for sea ice minimum. eighth Tom Karl, the former director of NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017's sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, "one can't look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales." director Glacial Ice on Greenland The NaturalNews.com approach for glacial ice on Greenland was similarly lacking scale and context. The main source for these arguments was a completely legitimate end-of-year report put out by the Danish Polar Portal, a website run by the Danish Meteorological Institute. In that report, the organization makes this factual statement: report Heavy snow and rain in winter with a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season have left the Greenland ice sheet with more ice than has been usual over the last twenty years  in fact we have to go back to the 1980s and 90s to see a year similar to this one in terms of snow fall and ice melt. This statement, and the figures presented by NaturalNews.com, are referring to a metric known as Surface Mass Balance (SMB), which Polar Portal describes: describes Each year glaciers gain ice from snow and freezing rain and lose ice by melt that runs off. Adding these together gives the surface mass budget (SMB) in Greenland, the ice sheet typically gains mass from around September to May and loses more mass than it gains in the ablation [melting] season of June, July and August. Importantly, however, this measurement only presents half the picture in terms of how much mass is being lost from year to year from Greenland's glaciers. That's because it does not include the rather significant portion of ice that breaks  or calves  off into the ocean to melt elsewhere. On average this accounts for about 500 Gt [gigatons] of further ice loss. This, as stated in the Polar Portal post, nearly matches the estimated gain in SMB reported by Natural News, effectively canceling it out. In a post on Carbon Brief, analysts with the Danish Meteorological Society put this years measurement in context: post While the Greenland ice sheet has seen a neutral, or small positive, change in ice for this year, it should be noted that Greenland has lost approximately 3,600bn tonnes of ice since 2002. Like the record of Arctic sea ice earlier, when put in the context of the entire trend of Greenland's ice mass over time (presented by Polar Portal below), 2017's measurement does nothing to change larger and completely unambiguous trends of overall melting: Polar Portal    Further, in the case of Greenland's ice sheet, there is not much of a mystery surrounding the lackluster amount of melting this year; a massive storm  the remnants of Hurricane Nicole  parked itself atop the continent, dumping a large amount of snow on the ice-covered continent: Hurricane Nicole dumping Heavy rain and snow in October in especially eastern Greenland gave record totals of precipitation in the main east coast town of Tasiilaq as the remnants of former hurricane Nicole passed by and, much as with Harvey in Houston this year, got lodged over eastern Greenland for some days. However, after Nicoles extreme precipitation, the rest of the winter was actually pretty average in terms of the amount of snow that fell. Because neither the higher-than-2012 arctic sea ice from 17 September 2017 nor the neutral amount of ice loss in Greenland in 2017 do anything to disrupt the overall trends of decreasing ice, and because climatological science does not require (nor does it expect) ice or temperature records to be broken every single year, we rank the claim that these observations are reasons to doubt the tenets of climate change as false. Watson, Tracey.  "Dont Look Now, but Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012."
  Natural News.  1 October 2017. Mottram, Ruth, et al.  "Guest Post: How the Greenland Ice Sheet Fared in 2017."
  Carbon Brief.  1 September 2017. Polar Portal.  "End of the SMB Season Summary 2017."
  12 September 2017. Morano, Marc.  "Massive Arctic Ice Gain (Up 40%) Since Low Point of 2012.
  Climate Depot.  19 September 2012. Hausfather, Zeke.  "State of the Climate: Warm Temperatures and Low Sea Ice Mark First Half of 2017."
  Carbon Brief.  21 July 2017. National Snow and Ice Data Center.  "Arctic Sea Ice at Minimum Extent."
  19 September 2017. Polar Science Center.  "PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis."
  Accessed 4 October 2017. NASA.  "End-of-Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Eighth Lowest on Record."
  19 September 2017. NASA.  "NASA Sees Tropical Storm Nicole Going Extra-Tropical."
  18 October 2016. Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera rolls without a security detail, a fact he likes to bring up as he campaigns to replace U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. Its an example of penny-pinching that he uses to set himself apart from the field of five Republicans vying for Rubios seat, as well as some predecessors whodrewscrutinyover transportation spending. I've actually cut the budget of the office by more than half, reduced the staff, he said in aninterviewwith Fox 13sMoney, Power, Politicsshow in Tampa which ran on air April 30. I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not ever take a security detail. Lopez-Cantera had dropped this tidbit at a speech earlier that month with theHillsborough County GOP, explaining, Its a waste of your money, and Im protected by the Second Amendment. (He has a concealed weapons permit.) With Lopez-Cantera playing up this factoid as an accomplishment, we wanted to know if he was really the first No. 2 guy to say nah, Ive got this, to taxpayer-paid protection. How he declined his security detail According tostate law, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall assign one patrol officer to the Office of the Governor  it does not mention the lieutenant governor. In practice, the right to a security detail for protection and transportation has been extended to recent lieutenant governors. But after Gov. Rick Scott plucked him for the office in 2014, Lopez-Cantera verbally declined that protection. In March, the Legislature approved a budget thatadded some languageto state that the security patrol is at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems that Lopez-Cantera had that discretion anyway, but the new language in law makes that clear. The Legislature also added language to give the right to security for the attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner. That appears to stem from a credible threat onAttorney General Pam Bondiin 2015, which prompted law enforcement to provide around-the-clock security for her for six weeks at a cost of $216,000. Scotts press office re-emphasized that it was Lopez-Canteras choice  and not, asrumor had it, the decision of former Scott chief of staff Adam Hollingsworth to downplay the role  in response to our inquiry. Still, there appeared to be a push to reduce expenses in that position after multiple news reports cited the amount of money spent on security and travel for Jeff Kottkamp under Gov. Charlie Crist and Jennifer Carroll, Scotts first lieutenant governor. The state spent$1.1 millionover four years for security and transportation for Kottkamp. In Carroll's first year in office, the Florida Highway Patrol spent $288,000 on travel and security. But after spending restrictions were put in place, that total dropped to$89,000in 2012. Lopez-Cantera garners even less attention as lieutenant governor than Carroll, hardly ever appearing alongside Scott at public events and keeping a sparse public calendar of events, theMiami Herald/Tampa Bay TimesTallahassee bureau noted inJuly 2015. Lopez-Cantera had six days of security  at a cost of $27,000  in May 2014 following a threat against him, according to a Florida Department of Law Enforcementreport. Past lieutenant governors and security The lieutenant governor role was revived in 1968 after a century without one. We tried to contact Lopez-Canteras predecessors (who are still alive today) for the low-down. The Florida Highway Patrol said that the following lieutenant governors had a security detail: Wayne Mixson (1979-87), Bobby Brantley (1987-1991), Buddy MacKay (1991-1998), Frank Brogan (1999-2003), Toni Jennings (2003-07), Kottkamp (2007-11) and Carroll (2011-13.) We attempted to reach all of those former lieutenant governors and were able to interview all but Brogan, Jennings and MacKay. Four confirmed they used the security detail. The only one who said he didnt use a security detail was Jim Williams, who was the lieutenant governor 1975-79. I didnt have security, Williams, 93, told PolitiFact Florida. Anita Oneida Darley, his aide at the time, also said he didnt have a security detail. The Florida Highway Patrol could not confirm. Mixson said that he used a security detail when he traveled within Florida, but he did not when he was in the office or when he traveled to foreign countries. The Florida Highway Patrol had traditionally supplied a security individual and they did, Mixson said. Brantley said he had a state trooper who traveled with him sometimes, including on a trip to Canada. He said the trooper served mostly as a driver. He had a desk inside my office, Brantley said. If I didnt have a need for him Id have him go and do patrol duty. He would actually go on the street and stop speeders. Brantley said that Brogan was the first one he recalled with an actual plainclothes security detailing talking in their sleeve and all that stuff. Kottkamp, now a lawyer in Tallahassee, said the security detail came with the job. On the night Gov. Crist and I were elected  they showed up at the hotel, he said. Someone was with me and the governor from that point on. It was a responsibility the FHP took very seriously. FHP leadership viewed it as a legal obligation to insure continuity of government. Carroll said troopers would pick her up to provide security when she traveled to other parts of the state. Our ruling Lopez-Cantera said, I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not take a security detail. He went without a security detail when he started in 2014  a break from most lieutenant governors in recent memory who have used state security. The only one we could find who said he did not have security detail was Jim Williams, lieutenant governor from 1975-79. The state could not confirm one way or another. That was about 40 years ago, so to us Lopez-Canteras point still holds water. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f3425ea7-664c-4d1c-9bc5-bb771765d290 A claim swept across the web following the magnitude 7.8 earthquake that struck Turkey and Syriaat4:17 a.m. local time onFeb. 6 that the natural disaster destroyed the ancient Gaziantep Castle. The castle is in the Turkish city of the same name. The quake was centered "about 20 miles from Gaziantep," NBC Newsreported via data from the U.S. Geological Survey. NBC News Around 24 hours after the earthquake struck, The Associated Press(AP) was already reporting more than 3,400 deaths, showing just how devastating the massive quake had truly been. The Associated Press In our research, we found that Gaziantep Castle had been at least partially destroyed. This story will present our findings. In the aftermath of the earthquake and its many aftershocks, Twitter user @ThomasVLinge posted a before-and-after comparison to show the damage to Gaziantep Castle.  Eight minutes later, another Twitter user posted the same two pictures with the caption, "2,200 years old Gazintap Castle destroyed by the earthquake in Turkey. Before vs Now."  The pictures featured in both of these tweets were accurate. The second photograph of the damaged castle was available on the Getty Images website and showed a date of Feb. 6. Getty Images Similarly, CNN.com reported, "Ancient castle used by Romans and Byzantines destroyed in Turkey earthquake." Within the body of the story, it was reported that the castle had been "badly damaged." reported Videos appeared to show a glimpse at the extent of the damage.  Additionally, we located a helpful picture that showed an aerial view of the damage to the castle. This view appeared to indicate that the damage had been devastating, but also that it wasn't a complete and total loss.  The APreported that the castle had previously undergone multiple renovations, with the most recent one occurring in the early 2000s: reported In Turkey, the powerful quake destroyed a historic castle perched on top a hill in the Turkish city of Gaziantep. Parts of the Gaziantep Castle's walls and watch towers were levelled while other areas of the structure were damaged, images from the region showed. The castle was first used as a watch tower and was expanded into a castle during Roman times. It underwent renovation numerous times, the last time in the early 2000s. At press time, it was unclear what percentage of the damage was from renovations versus what was part of the original works, a subject that was being discussed online. discussed According to "Defence Sites II: Heritage and Future," the hill where the castle stood had a history that went backthousands of years. "Archaeological excavation showed that the site has been inhabited from Iron Age 650 B.C. till Chalcolite Age 5500 B.C.," authorsC.A. Brebbia and C. Clark wrote. "Traces of the castle were estimated to date [to the] Hittites. However, [the] main castle was first built in the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. in the Roman era and further enlarged and strengthened in Byzantium era by Emperor Justinian between 527 and 565 A.D." This story will be updated if further details come to light. Brebbia, C. A., and C. Clark.Defence Sites II: Heritage and Future. WIT Press, 2014. Google Books. https://books.google.com/. Guzel, Mehmet, et al. "Rescuers Scramble in Turkey, Syria after Quake Kills 3,400." The Associated Press, 6 Feb. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/earthquake-shakes-turkey-b927808f6a5c54bdb669120faa40b7bc. Ihlas News Agency. "Gaziantep Kalesi Depremde Byk Hasar Grd." YouTube, 6 Feb. 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0bkC1VHafM. Khan, Aina J., and Mithil Aggarwal. "More than 3,000 Dead as Two Massive Earthquakes Rock Turkey and Syria." NBC News, 6 Feb. 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/78-magnitude-earthquake-shakes-central-turkey-rcna69251. "Live Updates | Thousands Dead after Turkey, Syria Earthquake." The Associated Press, 6 Feb. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/turkey-earthquake-live-updates-19e7d84fefdeed4c8a355dedf23d914f. Marcus, Lilit. "Ancient Castle Used by Romans and Byzantines Destroyed in Turkey Earthquake." CNN, 6 Feb. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/gaziantep-castle-destroyed-turkey-earthquake/index.html. Parlak, Mehmet Akif and Anadolu Agency. "A View of Damaged Historical Gaziantep Castle after a 7.4 Magnitude..." Getty Images, 6 Feb. 2023, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/view-of-damaged-historical-gaziantep-castle-after-a-7-4-news-photo/1246836963. @ThomasVLinge. "Thousands Are Feared Death after a 7,8 Earthquake Hit Southern #Turkey and Northern #Syria Last Night, Causing Many Buildings to Collapse. This Picture Shows the Historical Castle of #Gaziantep before and after the Quake." Twitter, 6 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/ThomasVLinge/status/1622507842178633728. u/stepover7. "Gaziantep Castle Collapses after Magnitude 7.4 Quake Hit Trkiye." r/worldnews via Reddit.com, 6 Feb. 2023, https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/10v07sz/gaziantep_castle_collapses_after_magnitude_74/. @xruiztru. "2,200 Years Old Gazintap Castle Destroyed by the Earthquake in Turkey. Before vs Now." Twitter, 6 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/xruiztru/status/1622509677945708548. Claim:  President Obama refused to participate in the ALS Association's "Ice Bucket Challenge."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Tea Party.net posted on Facebook that President Obama refuse to take the ice bucket challenge from an 86 year old woman who did take the challenge.  Is that true and how did this 86 year old lady submit her challenge to the White House to begin with, etc.  Is is also true that the original challenge was either do the ice bucket or contribute 100 dollars to your favorite charity compared to the way it is going around now?   Origins:  In August 2014 the online world was hit with the "Ice Bucket Challenge," a playful competition that encouraged netizens to douse themselves with buckets of ice water, and challenge others to do the same,  Ice Bucket Challenge as a method of raising awareness and donations for the ALS Association (ALSA)  a national non-profit organization that provides services to persons with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrigs Disease) and helps to fund research into the disease. As of mid-August 2014, ALSA was reporting it had surpassed $10 million in "Ice Bucket" donations. ALS Association reporting As described on ALSA's web page about the "Ice Bucket Challenge," that phenomenon seeks both to raise awareness of ALS (through people actively taking the challenge of dumping buckets of ice water on their heads and posting videos of their activity on the Internet) and to raise funds for ALS research (through donations provided by those who prefer making financial contributions rather than dousing themselves with ice-cold water): The challenge involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. Those who refuse to take the challenge are asked to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice. One of those who accepted the "Ice Bucket Challenge" was 86-year-old Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who took part in a mass challenge event on 10 August 2014 involving numerous members of the Kennedy clan and others, then challenged President Obama to do the same, declaring "Welcome to Cape Cod, President Obama. I nominate you": challenge event  The White House responded by stating that President Obama's contribution would be financial rather than participatory: responded The President appreciates Mrs. Kennedy thinking of him for the challenge  though his contribution to this effort will be monetary. The President [will] be making a donation to an ALS charity this week. Did President Obama therefore "refuse" to take the "Ice Bucket Challenge"?  If one considers the whole essence of the challenge to be pouring ice water over one's head to raise awareness of ALS, then perhaps so. But, as described on the ALSA web site, the challenge also involves raising donations for ALS research from those who decline to participate in the "dousing yourself with ice water" portion and are instead asked "to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice," and President Obama honored the spirit of the challenge by agreeing to the latter aspect. Last updated:  19 August 2014 If there was one success story to emerge from the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, it was that more people are getting treated for HIV/AIDS than ever before -- about 17 million by the latest United Nations estimate. Falling drug prices played a key role in helping providers reach this point. But the international health group Doctors Without Borders (Mdecins Sans Frontires) warned at a press conference that trade negotiations around the world put future gains at risk. The group saidits latest reportexamines multiple global threats to access to affordable treatment, including trade deals which threaten Indias role as the pharmacy of the developing world. Trade is at the center of the U.S. presidential election for its effect on the American work force. But is there more at play? We wondered if its true that the next round of agreements, both those that involve the United States and those that dont, would undermine some large drug makers in India. Why India India matters because thanks to the countrys patent laws, India and generics go together like toast and jam. The rules there make it easier than other places for companies to churn out generic drugs once the patent on the original version runs out. Generics are cheaper than their brand name cousins and if you want to stretch a dollar, you take the generic option. Doctors Without Borders said97 percent of the drugs it uses to treat people with HIV are generics made in India. That includes medicines for HIV itself, as well as for diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis that hit people with suppressed immune systems. Doctors Without Borders is worried less about the drugs it uses today and more about the ones its counting on in the future. As the number of people coming in for treatment rises, doctors are finding more who dont respond to the most common, or first-line, medications. Doctors Without Borders is focused on making second-and-third-line drugs more affordable to keep pace with a growing need, and they see India as the place to make that happen. Impact of trade deals Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership gets a lot of attention in the United States, India is not part of it. But it is part of discussions involving the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a mega-regional pact that aims to tie together 16 countries including China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other Asian nations. The European Union is also seeking a regional trade agreement with India and other Asian countries. Both of those trade negotiations have sought to get India to tighten its patent laws. The United States has too, through a one-on-one process overseen by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The issues that office has raised mirror ones in the big trade deals. The USTRslatest reportcriticizes Indias patent laws, saying the pharmaceutical industry in particular faces a host of challenges related to intellectual property rights. What do U.S. trade negotiators not like in particular? For one, India is reluctant to grant new patents for a drug or blend of drugs built around medications that already enjoy patent protection. These so-called secondary patents extend the time for the drug maker to enjoy exclusive production rights. That translates into a chance to charge higher prices. American officials also dont care for Indias rules on clinical trial information. When someone invents a drug, they have to prove its safe and effective. That proof is in the trial reports. India lets generic drug makers rely on the original clinical trials. One way to extend the exclusive right to make a drug is to bar generic drug makers from using that data for a number of years. Would these sorts of changes make life easier for the makers of new drugs and harder for the generic manufacturers? We found no dispute that they would. We talked with independent experts who think India should stand its ground and those who thought it ought to bend, but either way, they agreed on who wins and who loses. There are good arguments on both sides for protecting the profits of companies that invent new drugs, versus making drugs more affordable. We take no position on the larger question of where the right balance point falls. We're focused only on the claim that large trading partners want to move Indian law in favor of the inventors of new drugs. Lee Branstetter is a professor and trade specialist at Carnegie Mellon University. He thinks Indian law ought to change at the expense of the generic companies. In the short run, this will constrain the profit opportunities for the generic producers, he told us. Srividhya  Ragavan, a professor of law at Texas A&M, thinks Indias laws strike the right balance as they are. She told us she sees the U.S. position as an effort to weaken Indias generic drug industry. We found anynumberofarticlesthat reached the same conclusion. But just because Branstetter and Ragavan see eye to eye on how these policy shifts would undermine generic drug makers, that doesn't mean they agree on what this means for the availability of low-cost drugs. Ragavan told us the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and EUs trade negotiations, are all targeting Indias generic drug industry much to the detriment of access to medication to the poor people. Branstetter said thats unlikely and highlights an important feature in the overarching trade rules of the World Trade Organization. The escape hatch Branstetter said based on what hes seen in other countries (he cited Peru as an example) he doubts that would happen. But even if it did, he said, a part of the WTO code -- theDoha Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement-- gives countries the chance to override a patent that limits a drugs availability. Branstetter calls it an escape hatch. Any member state could declare we have a public health emergency, Branstetter said. Then, they can force the company that holds the patent to licence the manufacture of that drug to a domestic or foreign drug producer, who would provide it at an agreed price. Branstetter notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnershipspecifically requiresany country that signs it to accept that Doha declaration. Countries have taken thisstep before. At the height of the AIDS crisis in the mid 2000s, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Mozambique and many others issued what are called compulsory licenses to get affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens. Still, Rohit Malpani, director of policy of the Doctors Without Borders- Access Campaign, told us that in recent years, the number of compulsory licenses has fallen off. Even if countries have the right to use the safeguard and can use them they do not, Malpani said. He suggested several reasons, including a lack of political will and pressure from the United States, the EU and the drug companies. Our ruling Doctors Without Borders said that trade deals threaten the capacity of Indian generic drug makers to produce the next round of HIV drugs. We found that trade negotiations, whether part of large regional trade agreements or unilateral discussions between the United States and India, have language that work against India generic drug makers. They push India to be more ready to grant patents for drugs that are extensions of  drugs that already enjoy patent protection. And they want India to bar generic drug makers from relying on the clinical trial data produced by the inventor of the drug. Both measures would make patents last longer and give the drug companies more time to charge higher prices. None of the articles we read or experts we reached doubted this result or that this would undermine the generic drug makers. Our experts disagreed on whether this would reduce access to critical drugs. The trade deals do no favors for Indias generic drug makers. With a caveat about future access to drugs, we rate this claim Mostly True. On the evening of Feb. 11, 2024, shortly afterthe Kansas City Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LVIII,an image of U.S. President Joe Biden with glowing red laser eyes circulated online, along with the caption, "Just like we drew it up."Screenshots of the post indicated that Biden's official account on X (formerly Twitter) made the post. image Screenshots The post referenced the "Dark Brandon" meme  that is, imagerydepicting Biden as a nonhuman villain with laser eyes and is a satirical response to critics. Prior to the championship game, many right-wingconspiracy theorists made posts about Democrats secretly scheming with Chiefs tight Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift to help Biden's 2024 presidential campaign. They believed high-profile Democrats worked with the NFL to rig the season so that Kelce and Swift would end up at the highly watched event and endorse Biden there, CNN reported. Dark Brandon depicting response conspiracy CNN reported (Screenshot via Reddit) Biden's official X account did indeed share the image, a reference to the Dark Brandon meme, along with the words, "Just like we drew it up," after the Chiefs' Super Bowl victory. We thus rated the claim  The original tweet is viewable on Biden's X account and archived here. (The account is distinct from the one he uses for presidential matters, which is @POTUS.) here POTUS Just like we drew it up. pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE  Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 12, 2024 February 12, 2024  The notion that Biden or Democrats had any role in the outcome of Super Bowl LVIII was nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory. We reached out to the White House asking what it meant by, or why it authored, the post  which appeared to be trolling people who believed the conspiracy theory to be true. We'll update this report if, or when, we receive a response. unfounded conspiracy theory As wereported before, critics of the president started referring to him as "Brandon" around 2021, and memes depicting him as a cartoonish villain with laser eyessurfacedaround that time, too. As a response, supporters of the president  including White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates (tweet below) attempted toreclaim the "Dark Brandon" imagery tomock people who genuinely posted it. reported surfaced White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates reclaim  According to The Associated Press, the "Brandon" name stemmed from an incident in which a reporter mistook a crowd'schant of "F*** Joe Biden" for "Let's go, Brandon" in support of a NASCAR driver. Since then, anti-Biden people have used "Let's go, Brandon" as a rallying cry, putting it on T-shirts, merchandise and more. The Associated Press "Dark Brandon" memes  i.e. images of alaser-eyed Biden  are an apparent attempt by the president's supporters to comment on the conspiratorial nature of some of his critics. Bidenreferencedthe internet trend at the 2023 White House Correspondents Association dinner. referenced Kaczynski, Andrew and Oliver Darcy. "Right-Wing Media Figures Target Taylor Swift with Absurd Conspiracy Theory Ahead of the Super Bowl | CNN Business." CNN, 30 Jan. 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/media/taylor-swift-super-bowl-right-wing-conspiracy/index.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. "'Let's Go Brandon': A Collection of Stories." Snopes, 2 Nov. 2021, https://www.snopes.com//collections/lets-go-brandon/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Navlakha, Meera. "Joe Biden's Laser-Eyed Alter Ego Returns for Super Bowl Meme." Mashable, 12 Feb. 2024, https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-dark-brandon-meme-taylor-swift-donald-trump.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Romano, Aja. "The 'Dark Brandon' Meme  and Why the Biden Campaign Has Embraced It  Explained." Vox, 11 Aug. 2022, https://www.vox.com/culture/23300286/biden-dark-brandon-meme-maga-why-confusing-explained.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Biden Trolls MAGA Republicans with Super Bowl Tweet." The Hill, 12 Feb. 2024, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4462750-biden-trolls-maga-republicans-super-bowl-tweet/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Thompson, Alex, and Allie Bice. "Dark Brandon Begins: How WH Aides Appropriated the Meme of Their Boss as an Underworld Kin." POLITICO, 8 Aug. 2022, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2022/08/08/how-a-meme-of-biden-as-an-underworld-king-became-appropriated-by-his-aides-00050405.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. FACT CHECK:  Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate?  Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work.     Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled  ------------------------  The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend         1. Don't marry her.         2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.         3. The guy buys a house.         4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.         5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.         6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.         7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free!         8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps        9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government       10. Girlfriend get free utilities.       11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail.       12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit.       13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again.         This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance   1. Don't marry (your girlfriend).  2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.  3. The guy buys a house.  4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.  5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it.  Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place.  Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing.  He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns.  The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, the ACA, or "Obamacare") somehow allows low-income Americans to "sign up" for free medical care and/or free health insurance.  It doesn't.  It does provide lower-income households with tax credits/subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, but one would generally have to be at the very lower end of the ACA income scale and select the least expensive type of health insurance plan available to avoid paying anything at all for insurance.  (And even then, the family would still have to pay out of pocket for all the costs not necessarily covered by insurance, such as copays for office visits, diagnostic tests, lab work, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc.) PPACA  7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it.  Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother.  There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day.  The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent.  Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life.  Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't  qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free   obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published:  31 August 2015 In early June 2016, Facebook users widely shared articles that reported that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech on income inequality. The claim's undercurrent was that Clinton's interest in the plight of middle-class Americans was visibly superficial. Interest in the claim began with a New York Post article that focused not on the jacket, but on Clinton's general wardrobe choices on the campaign trail. Its title referenced the "surprising strategy behind Hillary Clintons designer wardrobe," and the piece began by noting that Clinton's appearance and style have been publicly scrutinized and mocked for decades: Hillary Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not  she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket. The polished outfit was a stark contrast to the fashion choices Clinton has made in the past. As first lady, Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state, she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors  so mocked that they sparked memes. In comparison to Michelle Obama, whos become known as a style icon during her time in the White House and appeared on the cover of Vogue twice, Clinton has never been able to nail down a personal aesthetic that works for her. The article speculated (but didn't confirm) that Clinton paid full price for the clothing and did not wear it on loan from its designers. The paper also suggested that Clinton's fashion choices negatively affected her public perception in the past. The cost of men's suits worn by fellow politicians didn't appear in the article for contrast: Its a marked shift from Clintons 2008 run, when she regularly recycled outfits such as blue-and-tangerine pantsuits from DC-based designer Nina McLemore. But just like Clintons fashion choices of the past, the makeover could turn out to be divisive. On one side will be those who say its an appropriate expense for Clinton, given that shes in the unprecedented position of running for president as a woman  and looking the part is crucial to her success. On the other side are those who will see her spending as being out of touch with her message. Not long after Clinton's 2016 campaign looks were dissected by the Post, a litany of items condensed the article to a single headline:  It's true that the jacket was from Giorgio Armani's collection and bore a list price of $12,495. But on 8 June 2016 the jacket's actual retail price was $7,497, and the jacket can now be had for about one-third of that list price. price jacket The Post speculated that Clinton paid for the clothing out of pocket, but the web site Fashionista in turn said that might not necessarily be the case: The Post also posits that Clinton must be spending her own money on all these clothes, as no designer is taking credit for dressing her as they do with First Lady Obama; with Anna Wintour backing her campaign, it would not be outrageous to think that designers might also be quietly gifting clothing to Clinton. (The Post also attacks Clinton's style by mentioning that Michelle Obama has nabbed the cover of Vogue twice; it would be worth noting that Clinton has her own cover of Vogue, for which she wore Oscar de la Renta.) It's unclear whether Clinton purchased expensive clothing for such major appearances (such as her New York speech in April 2016), and it's possible she was loaned articles of clothing to wear by major designers. Stylists Jennifer Rade and Rebecca Klein of Media Style told CNBC that no matter what Clinton did, she would be criticized for her sartorial choices: CNBC But Clinton is "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't," said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors. "It's not appropriate for the forum," Klein said. "She is a presidential candidate. That would be disrespectful. ... She is dressing for the occasion." A June 2014 Associated Press article examined the matter of the contents of White House closets, noting that as an issue, the debate went back at least as far as Mary Todd Lincoln. The outlet noted that some clothing was gifted to Michelle Obama under specific circumstances: article In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama has turned heads with a forest-green Naeem Khan dress [and] shimmered in a silver Marchesa gown ... her flowered shirtdress for a Mother's Day tea at the White House (recycled from an earlier event) hit the just right note for an audience of military moms. It takes money to pull that off, month after month. Those three dresses by themselves could add up to more than $15,000 retail, not to mention accessories such as shoes and jewelry. Is it the taxpayers who foot the bill? No. (Despite what critics say.) Is it Mrs. Obama? Usually, but not always. Does she pay full price? Not likely. Does she ever borrow gowns from designers? No. The financing of the first lady's wardrobe is something that the Obama White House is loath to discuss. It's a subject that has bedeviled presidents and their wives for centuries. First ladies are expected to dress well, but the job doesn't come with a clothing allowance or a salary. Here's how Joanna Rosholm, press secretary to the first lady, explains it: "Mrs. Obama pays for her clothing. For official events of public or historic significance, such as a state visit, the first lady's clothes may be given as a gift by a designer and accepted on behalf of the U.S. government. They are then stored by the National Archives." The claim also included that Ms. Clinton wore the designer piece to "deliver a speech about income inequality." The Post originally reported that "Clintons New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement," an opener widely condensed to "a speech about income inequality." But in fact neither claim was accurate; the full text of Clinton's April 2016 New York speech was available online, and the words "income inequality" didn't appear a single time. The wide-ranging speech only briefly touched on a theme of "income inequality," an in a much broader sense than the rumor suggested: full text Now, we all knowwe all know many people who are still hurting. I see it everywhere I go. The Great Recession wiped out jobs, homes, and savings, and a lot of Americans havent yet recovered. But I still believe with all my heart that as another greater Democratic President once said, theres nothing wrong with America that cant be cured by whats right with America. That is, after all, what weve always done. Its who we are. America is a problem-solving nation. And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. Lets revitalize places that have been left out and left behind, from inner cities to coal country to Indian country. And lets put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our failing water systems like the one in Flint, Michigan. There are many places across our country where children and families are at risk from the water they drink and the air they breathe. Lets combat climate change and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Lets take on the challenge of systemic racism, invest in communities of color, and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. And once and for all, lets guarantee equal pay for women. After the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July 2016, Hillary Clinton's infamous Armani jacket was again negatively compared to the dress worn at the convention by GOP nominee Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka, an item of clothing (from Ivanka's own label) that retails for $158.  Trump's wife Melania, however, opted for a pricier Margot dress by Roksanda, which retails for $2,190 Ivanka label Melania  Benac, Nancy.  "Clothing Allowance Not A Perk For First Ladies' Fashion Needs And Wants."
  Associated Press.  2 June 2014. Bourne, Leah.  "The Surprising Strategy Behind Hillary Clintons Designer Wardrobe."
  New York Post.  5 June 2016. Gorman, Michele.  "Transcript: Hillary Clintons New York Victory Speech."
  Newsweek.  20 April 2016. McCall, Tyler.  "Actually, Hillary Clinton's Jacket Costs $7,497."
  Fashionista.  8 June 2016.