Were 10,800 U.S. Children Raped by Illegal Immigrants in 2018?
On 30 December 2018, News Punch, a junk news website with a long history of spreading misinformation, published an article reporting that 10,800 American children had been raped by illegal immigrants during 2018: "The number of U.S. children raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 was a staggering 10,800, according to data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement)." News Punch misinformation This claim has multiple dubious aspects, starting with the NCFIRE data. NCFIRE purports to compile "monthly child rape reports" covering sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants in North Carolina. Our inspection of their data, however, turned up a number of issues. For starters, while the data were compiled under the title "monthly child rape reports," the supporting documents actually included a variety of sex-related crimes, such as possession of child pornography and "indecent liberties with a child," that aren't rape. We also found one individual who was included in the 2018 report even though he raped a child in 2011. That person presumably was included in the 2018 report because of an arrest that year for failing to report an address change. report In addition to including outdated charges and crimes other than rape in the "monthly child rape reports," NCFIRE also appears to be counting arrests, not convictions. In other words, a number of individuals included in these reports have only been accused of crimes, and the charges against them may be dropped or found to be unsupported at trial. Furthermore, while some entries on this list link to genuine reports from ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the majority of entries include links to news reports or mugshot pages that make no mention of immigration status. Although this group claims that they "verify the illegal alien status of each individual we post in our Monthly Child Rape reports through the arresting agency of each individual," a spokesperson for the Raleigh Police Department told us that they "were not familiar" with NCFIRE.  Despite the multiple problems with the rape reporting, News Punch used these statistics to come up with their 10,800 figure: Meanwhile, data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement) reveals that the state of North Carolina has arrested an average of 18 illegal aliens every month this year for the crime of child rape. Statistically, this means that the 50 states in America are on track to arrest 10,800 illegal aliens for raping children in 2018. And that 10,800 figure is a bare-minimum, super-generous, giving-the-illegal-alien-child-rapists-the-benefit-of-the-doubt number. A total of 10,800 arrests assumes that each illegal alien child rapist only rapes one child in America. Many will rape three, four, or a dozen before they are caught, so the "true" number could be in the 30,000 to 40,000 raped children range. The claim that 10,800 children in the U.S. were raped by illegal immigrants did not originate with a law enforcement agency, government body, or other reputable crime-tracking source. Rather, an average figure pulled from questionable data compiled by one group in one state was extrapolated to the entirety of the U.S. without basis. That number also doesn't square with what we know about the criminal activities of illegal immigrants or the statistics for sexual abuse against children. Although the 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report does not specifically list crimes against children, it does shed some light on the number of sexual crimes committed by illegal immigrants. According to the ICE report, 5,350 charges or convictions of sexual assault were levied against illegal immigrants during the 2018 fiscal year. Another 6,888 charges or convictions relating to sexual offenses (not involving assault) were also recorded: Report Table 1 tallies all pending criminal charges and convictions by category for those aliens administratively arrested in FY2018 and lists those categories with at least 1,000 combined charges and convictions present in this population. These figures are representative of the criminal history as it is entered in the ICE system of record for individuals administratively arrested. Each administrative arrest may represent multiple criminal charges and convictions, as many of the aliens arrested by ERO are recidivist criminals.   The claim that 10,800 American children were raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 is also implausible due to the fact that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children are committed by parents or relatives, as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) reported in 2016: RAINN Out of the yearly 63,000 sexual abuse cases substantiated, or found [by] strong evidence, by Child Protective Services (CPS), the perpetrator was most often the parent: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  "ICE Arrests Fugitive Alien in NC Wanted on Multiple Maryland Rape Charges."
  18 October 2018.  Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.  "Child Sexual Abuse Is a Widespread Problem."
  Retrieved 9 January 2019. Adl-Tabatabai, Sean.  "10,800 U.S. Children Were Raped by Illegal Immigrants in 2018."
  News Punch.  30 December 2018. WRAL.  "Moore County Man Charged with Raping Child."
  1 January 2001. Updated [15 January 2019]: Added quote from Raleigh Police Department spokesperson.
American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:   There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True. For several years, social media users have shared tweets and memes claiming that funds from the sale of Girl Scout Cookies are distributed to Planned Parenthood, often posting such items with hashtags such as "#cookiecott" to promote the rumor: How did we end up with a crooked eyed snake salesman Leader, selling nothing but snake oil to Americans?  Tiffiny Bond (@RedHatGeek) April 8, 2015 April 8, 2015  @KazmierskiR don't even get me started on Girl Scout cookies where portion goes to PP don't buy cookies write a check to the troop @KazmierskiR  QThePatriots+++ (@patriotswanted) December 23, 2015 December 23, 2015  An opinion piece dated March 22, 2018 on LifeNews.com encouraged readers to "say no" to Girl Scout cookies over "ties" to Planned Parenthood (although it did not repeat the claim that proceeds of cookie sales go to fund that organization).  LifeNews.com The claim that Girl Scout Cookie sales fund Planned Parenthood became popular in mid-2015 and early 2016, likely due in part to a series of questionable viral videos targeting the latter organizationcirculated in the summer of 2015.  However, the rumor had previously spread widely in 2012, after Fox News reprinted a (since-deleted) opinion piece from LifeSiteNews that stated (in part): videos opinion piece When our sweet little neighbor in her brown camp uniform came knocking on our door this year, we had to say no. I told her mother that I didnt want to hurt Katies feelings, but I couldnt support the Girl Scout cookie sale anymore because Id learned too much about the organizers agenda, primarily their support for abortion and partnership with Planned Parenthood ... Several years ago. a quarter of the Girl Scout councils nationwide admitted to partnering with Planned Parenthood, the nations abortion giant. When questioned about the affiliation on NBCs Today Show, Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger had no compunction in confirming it. In fact, what then-Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger said on NBC's Today show back in 2012 was that Planned Parenthood was one of several organizations (including church communities and YMCAs) that the Girl Scouts worked with "to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.  Cloninger did not state (or imply) that any financial support relationship existed between the two organizations.  We contacted the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) to determine whether any portion of the rumor was true. They responded to say thatno proceeds have ever been donatedfrom the sale of Girl Scout Cookies toPlanned Parenthood. The Girl Scout Cookies section of the Girl Scouts website's FAQ declares that all revenue raised from cookie sales goes to the local Girl Scout councils and troops, not outside organizations: Girl Scout Cookies Q: Does any part of Girl Scout Cookie Program revenue support organizations other than the local Girl Scout council? A: One hundred percent of the net proceeds from Girl Scout Cookie sales is retained by the originating council and troop to power amazing experiences for girls and influential girl-led community projects. Girl Scout troops set goals for how to spend their proceeds on program-related activities, such as paying their own way to a community event or museum or funding other program outings. Girl Scout troops may also choose to use proceeds to purchase materials for a Take Action or service project to benefit the community. The Social Issues portion of the FAQ also states that GSUSA "does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood": Social Issues  A 12 March 2015New York Times compendium piece addressed the rumor and found it lacking: piece In recent years, conservative groups have challenged the organization  even held cookiecotts  over critics claims that it supports abortion. One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 went so far as to say the Girl Scouts were quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. cookiecotts One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. does have a legislative agenda. Reducing bullying and increasing girls involvement in science, technology, engineering and math are among issues on its website. issues Not on the list: abortion, or any social issues. abortion, or any social issues Anna Maria Chvez, the chief executive of the national group, responded to critics last year, denying any relationship with Planned Parenthood. responded to critics A box of Girl Scout cookies is not a political statement, she said. As Girl Scouts of the United States of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, their financial statements are by law made freely available to the public, along with their annual report. financial statements annual report Hassan, Adeel.  "Your Thursday Briefing."
  The New York Times.  12 March 2015.

 Ruse, Cathy Cleaver.  "Say No to Girl Scout Cookies."
  LifeSiteNews.  17 January 2012.
 Harrington, Elizabeth.  "Pelosi: Girl Scouts' Relationship with Planned Parenthood Very Valuable."
  CNSNews.com   1 February 2012.
 Updated with information about a more recent example of the claim. Claim:   An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides. Status:  Multiple:  The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children:  False.  The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round:  True.  The proposed study was canceled in April 2005:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs to Test Toxic Chemicals Dear friend, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to launch an outrageous new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. The study entitled CHEERS (Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Please take a moment to follow this link and join tens of thousands of citizens in petitioning the EPA to terminate this study prior to its proposed launch in early 2005. More information, related newspaper headlines and petition here:  https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Please also forward this message. Origins:  Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth. While the proposed investigation was real, the nature of the test subjects was misunderstood, leading to those who heard of to arrive at some erroneous  conclusions. Through a research project known as the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to gather data about pesticide and household chemical exposure in very young children. The study was set to begin in the summer of 2005 in Jacksonville, Florida, and would have entailed monitoring 60 infants (newborn to just shy of 13 months old) for a period of two years. However, while the e-mail left readers with the impression that poverty-stricken families were for the price of a camcorder and $970 heartlessly offering up their tots as lab rats, the little ones to be deliberately sickened by cruel scientists intent upon advancing human knowledge even at the price of 60 babies potentially dealt life-long serious physical ailments by exposure to dreadful chemicals, the truth was quite different. One of the reasons the EPA chose Duval County, Florida, as the site of this research had to do with year-round pesticide use in that area. The children who would have been the subjects of the study live there. In other words, if all the clipboard-wielding EPA people stayed home and the project were canceled before it began, these same children would be exposed to these same pesticides and in the same amounts, due to nothing more sinister than where their parents chose to settle and raise their families. The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA. Given that these youngsters were coming into contact with noxious chemicals because of where they lived, the EPA saw a good opportunity to examine the effects of such compounds on small children by studying subjects drawn from this particular group. CHEERS would have tracked 60 of these little ones over the course of two years, measuring not only their exposure to pesticides but also to ordinary household chemicals (cleaning products and the like). The parents of kids taking part in the study would have had to keep very careful logs on which products were used and in which amounts in their homes. They would also have been required to videotape their tykes being studied and maintain logs of the little ones' activities. For this, and for allowing researchers into the family domicile every few months to assess the children being observed and to examine the homes, these parents would have received a $970 stipend and would have been allowed at the end of the two years to keep the video cameras. Update: On 8 April 2005, the proposed study was canceled. As to why, Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said: Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study. I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. Additional information:       Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study  (EPA)        CHEERS Fact Sheet  (EPA)  Last updated:  31 August 2005    Sources:   Allison, Wes.  "Nelson Vows EPA Delay Over Pesticide Study."   St. Petersburg Times.  8 April 2005  (p. A6).    Eilperin, Juliet.  "Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study."   The Washington Post.  26 October 2004  (p. A3).    Kirkpatrick, David D.  "E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides."   The New York Times.  9 April 2005  (p. A15).   Associated Press.  "Pesticide Study with Children Delayed."  CNN.  12 November 2004. For years Facebook users have been seeing posts advertising giveaways for the Kroger grocery store chain such as "Get $55 in Free Groceries" coupon offers.  However, such posts are just versions of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media. On more than one occasion the Kroger Company has taken to Facebook to warn customers that these coupon offers are not an authorized promotion and to advise them not to visit sites promoting them: Facebook  These fake coupon and gift card offers are typically scams that promise rewards to anyone who follows a simple three-step process: Share the message on Facebook, leave a comment, and like the message. These three steps ensure the scam message circulates to thousands of people on Facebook. @SocialNewsDaily That offer is a scam -- we are not affiliated w/ that website. Our Digital Coupons can be found at https://t.co/rvO3m1IXTf. @SocialNewsDaily https://t.co/rvO3m1IXTf  Kroger Support (@KrogerSupport) October 15, 2014 October 15, 2014  Previous versions of the scam, for example, featured a similar message that invaded Facebook promising a $250 gift card. The message redirected to a web page that was not affiliated with Kroger despite the fact that it was adorned with the company's logo:  This page instructed shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps were completed, however, users were not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. Kroger has repeatedly warned their customers not to fall victims to this form of scam:   These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card."
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. On Nov. 24, 2022, a Facebook user posted a picture of a blue owl. However, blue owls are not real, meaning that the image was a fake. posted  The post from Nov. 24 was shared at least 2,000 times in a little over one week. It was the earliest posting of the picture that we have found so far. On Twitter, the fake blue owl picture, which showed cat-like whiskers for the animal, received hundreds of thousands of likes. For example, this tweet from@jimrosecircus1 was posted on Dec. 1, 2022. It showed nearly 150,000 likes by the next day. The caption read, "I hope you don't mind this adorably majestic blue owl in your newsfeed." tweet  Under the tweet, Twitter added a context note that read, "There is no such thing as blue owl. It looks really good but unfortunately it's not true." On Dec. 2, the @daily__owls Twitter account also posted the fake picture of the blue owl with the misleading caption, "The beautiful Norwegian Blue owl." posted  According to Brittanica.com, "owls vary in color from white through many shades of tan, gray, brown, or rufous (reddish) to deep brown." Despite the beauty of the blue and orange owl in the picture, it's just not real. Brittanica.com Hoax hunter @HoaxEye tweeted of the blue owl image that it may have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The tweet also tagged the user @Valdevia_Art, who added that they believed it was likely not as simple as a color change in Adobe Photoshop. Instead, the user said that it "does seem AI-generated." tweeted added said This wasn't the first time a picture of a purportedly blue owl made its way around social media. In 2021, USA Today's fact-check team debunkeda picture of what online posts referred to as a "blue Philippines owl." VisitCryptoVille.com previously published a story about the same picture five years earlier. debunked picture story Back in 2019, AFP filed a report about a "beautiful blue owl of Madagascar," which also was fake. report At Snopes, we've previously fact-checked photos purporting to show a multicolored "rainbow owl" (fake) and a "rare red owl with blue eyes" (also fake). rainbow owl rare red owl with blue eyes This story will be updated if we find more details about the origins of the blue owl picture. As noted by some knowledgeable Twitter users, it may have simply been generated by AI. @Daily__Owls. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/Daily__Owls/status/1598613376992792576. @HoaxEye. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1598734104396079104. @jimrosecircus1. Twitter, 1 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/jimrosecircus1/status/1598366192817045504. "Owl - Appearance and Classification." Britannica.Com, https://www.britannica.com/animal/owl/Form-and-function. Sadeghi, McKenzie. "Fact Check: Viral Image Claiming to Be a Blue Philippine Owl Is Doctored." USA TODAY, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/22/fact-check-viral-image-purported-blue-philippine-owl-doctored/4533533001/. Salah, Dr. Muhammad. "Just Admire the Beauty of Allah's Creation!" Facebook, 24 Nov. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/MSalahOfficial/posts/pfbid0TazmyskVgTA2axagkDCMNrAUqheW4LRPz91UvMUaK3v6xywK5JgrQHjLy6YysK61l. "The Blue Owl of the Philippines 19-31." VisitCryptoVille.com, 19 Jan. 2016, https://visitcryptoville.com/2016/01/19/the-blue-owl-of-the-philippines-19-31/. @Valdevia_Art. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/valdevia_art/status/1598752209935560706. Yan, Rachel. "No, This Is Not a Genuine Photo of a Blue Owl in Madagascar." AFPFact Check, 4 June 2019, https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-genuine-photo-blue-owl-madagascar. A central part of the stalemate between the White House and Democrats in Congress over a new coronavirus relief bill is what to do about enhanced federal unemployment benefits. Democrats want to extend the $600 weekly payment, which expired at the end of July. President Donald Trumpsigned an executive orderthat would create a new $400 payment  but only if states set up a new system and kick in a quarter of the cost. And some Republican lawmakers are balking at extending the benefit at all. That includes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 2, 2020interview on WISN-TVs UPFRONT programcharacterized the $600 in federal bonus money as a perverse incentive to keep people out of the economy. Depending on which study you look at, he said, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals according to (the Congressional Budget Office) are making more on unemployment than they did on the job. Is Johnson right about the stats? And what about the underlying point, that the benefit is disincentivizing people from going back to work? When asked to back up the claim, Johnsons office cited a May 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private nonprofit that does economic research, for the 68% statistic and a June 2020 letter from the Congressional Budget Offices director to U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate Finance Committee chair. TheNational Bureau of Economic Researchstudy indicates 68% of unemployed workers eligible for unemployment payments received benefits that exceed lost earnings, with 20% able to receive benefits that are double lost earnings. The study noted that the $600 benefit, when combined with state unemployment, is meant to replace the mean U.S. wage. Most U.S. workers have weekly earnings below the national average. In contrast, most states base unemployment benefits on a percentage of previous earnings, rather than a fixed amount, the study noted. Meanwhile, the CBO letter to Grassley said roughly five of every six recipients would receive benefits that exceeded the weekly amounts they would expect to earn from work during those six months. So, Johnson is on the mark with the numbers in his claim. Now, lets look at the disincentive question, which is the essence of his point. Lets start with the same CBO letter Johnson cited. It indicated the nations economic output would be higher in the short term with the $600 benefit. Thats because in the near term, Americans on unemployment would spend the additional money, increasing consumer demand. To meet that higher demand, suppliers would increase production and hire more people  or call them back to work  to do so. So, extending the $600 could boost employment, at least to a degree. But the letter also noted the effects from reduced incentives to work would be larger than the boost to employment from increased overall demand for goods and services. But other reports tie people not looking for work more closely to the availability of jobs, not to the extra money through the benefit. A July 14, 2020Yale University studyon the effect of the $600 benefit found that  when it went into effect  workers who received bigger increases in overall payments were not less likely to leave unemployment and find a job. Yale also found that workers with expanded benefits returned to their previous jobs at similar rates than those who did not get the extra money. Moreover, aJune 2020 analysis by the Chicago Federal Reservesays those who receive unemployment benefits are more likely to look for another job more intensively than those who have used up their unemployment benefits. Indeed, researchers found in this analysis once unemployed individuals exhaust their benefits, their search effort decreases. The analysis noted that, before the COVID enhancements, unemployment insurance  on average across the country  paid individuals 35% of their previous earnings. The analysis said there is evidence that when the government extended the unemployment eligibility period in the past, the length of time people spent unemployed increased. However, researchers found those collecting unemployment now are looking for work more intensively than unemployed people not receiving benefits. The intensity of the job search was measured in terms of hours spent searching and the number of applications submitted. In a television interview, Johnson said Depending on which study you look at, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals ... are making more on unemployment than they did on the job. He gets the numbers right, and the CBO acknowledges a disincentive to work. That said, other studies found that those who are unemployed and getting the extra money are looking harder for work than those without it. In other words, those studies downplay the idea that the extra money is encouraging people to remain unemployed. Our definition for Mostly True is The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. Austins typically soft-spoken mayor recently popped a big-as-Texas boast. Theres a reason Austin is number one in Texas in startups and venture capital and patents, Steve Adler said. Adler, speaking outside City Hall, went on: Theres a reason that tech and transportation companies come to Austin to roll out their new initiatives. And thats because Austin is where good ideas become real. Claiming that Austin is anti-innovation has no basis in fact. Hear hear! Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services. Startups Adler's office didn't immediately offer his backup. Meantime, our online search for information on startups led us to a June 2015 report from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation stating that in the last year, the Austin metropolitan area ranked No. 1 nationally for the areas pace launching startups, which the foundation defined as firms less than one-year old employing at least one person besides the owner. Asked what last year means in the report, foundation researcher E.J. Reedy advised by phone the conclusion tied to data from 2012 and 2014. According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio. Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reedy agreed by phone that among the big Texas cities, the Austin area had the greatest concentration of startups. But generally, Reedy indicated, counts of startups can vary, partly because theres no single accepted definition of startups, which inherently come and go at a rapid pace. The government has official measures, Reedy added, but each one captures an aspect -- for instance new employer businesses or newly self-employed individuals. Also, Reedy said, observers differ over what merits counting. Some stress large firms that employ many, he said, others urge a fix on technology firms and others say that any count should recognize small businesses (including one-person endeavors) that grow by an employee or two a year. A foundation chart presenting Austins startup density since the late 1970s indicates the area has had peppier times--including in 2008 (201.7 startups per 100,000 residents), 2006 (214.9), 1999 (217.9) and, the charts high point, 1981 (499.5), which was up a huge measure from 1980 (31.4):        SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016) Venture capital Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association,  said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million. The Austin-connected investments added up to the largest annual dollar figure for Austin since 2001, the newspaper said, when 127 companies received $1.14 billion. By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said. Nationally in 2015, theStatesmanstory said, venture capital investments rose to $58.8 billion, up 22 percent from the year before. Silicon Valley, as usual, took in the most money, with the San Jose area receiving $27.3 billion in 1,333 deals, the story said. Patents Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote. Greenberg elaborated: Austins culture of innovation may be boosted by well-known tech credentials like the South by Southwest (SXSW) Web startup and music festival held annually in March, as well as the nearby headquarters of hardware industry giants Dell and Freescale Semiconductor. But they also have two secret weapons in the innovation race: the University of Texass Cockrell School of Engineering, and IBMs Austin research lab. IBM produces more patents than any other company in the world, and for the last seven years Austin has produced more of those patents than any other IBM office. In total the lab produced 880 patents in 2009. Thats just 30 less than all of Cisco, and 300 more than Sun Microsystems, Boeing, AT&T or Toyota. We were unable to confirm or duplicate Greenbergs Austin conclusion. To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area. However, the regions raw counts were close, according to the agency, while the Austin area was responsible for more patents than any other Texas area from 2009, 2010 and 2011 through 2013, by our reckoning. Snapshot: The Austin area was responsible for 12,387 patents from 2009 through 2013, according to the office, with the Dallas area accounting for 11,546 patents -- which we took to mean that the less populous Austin area ran well ahead of the Dallas area in patents per 1,000 residents. Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO. The authors wrote: From 1980 to 2011, a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th. Not only did Austin surge in total patents, it lately achieved a high ranking in per-capita patents. From 2007 through 2011, a chart in the report indicates, the Austin metro area had 1,503 patents per million residents, tops in Texas and placing the area fourth nationally among high-patent areas behind San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (5,066 patents per million residents); Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York (1,829); and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (1,638). In Texas, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro area had 379 patents per million residents and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area had 310 per million, according to Brookings. Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294). An excerpt:             SOURCE:Chart ranking 100 U.S. Core Based Statistical Areas in tech patents invented per 1,000 population, 2008-2012 (received by email from Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, May 5, 2016) Regardless of those results, Muro and a Brookings colleague, Nick Marchio, suggested we hew to the U.S. patent office counts as the best general way of assessing the mayors claim. Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents. Our ruling Adler said: Austin is number one in Texas in startups, venture capital and patents. Houston has been running ahead in international technology patents, it looks to us, but Austin lately leads the state in overall patents, startups and venture capital. We rate the claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 9 July 2016, the Facebook page "The Medical Facts" published the image and explanation shown below, reporting the development of synthetic rhino horn as an anti-poaching measure: image A biotech startup has managed to 3-D print fake rhino horns that carry the same genetic fingerprint as the actual horn. The company plans to flood Chinese [the] Chinese rhino horn market at one-eighth of the price of the original, undercutting the price poachers can get and forcing them out eventually.  The International Rhino Foundation (IRF) and Save the Rhino International (SRI) issued a joint statement after "monitoring the progress of four US-based companies that have announced their intentions  with varying degrees of success  to produce synthetic or bio-fabricated rhino horn, and occasionally also other products including e.g. elephant ivory, lion bones or pangolin scales." In that statement, both groups expressed their opposition to the introduction of fake rhino horn to international markets: statement We are opposed to the development, marketing and sale of synthetic rhino horn [because]: o Selling synthetic horn does not reduce the demand for rhino horn or dispel the myths around rhino horn and could indeed lead to more poaching because it increases demand for the real thing o More than 90% of rhino horns in circulation are fake (mostly carved from buffalo horn or wood), but poaching rates continue to rise annually. o Synthetic horn could give credence to the notion that rhino horn has medicinal value, which is not supported by science. o Users buy from trusted sources and value the real thing. o The availability of legal synthetic horn could normalise or remove the stigma from buying illegal real horn. o It will take time to develop synthetic horn and meanwhile the poaching crisis continues. o How can consumers and law enforcement officials distinguish between legal synthetic horn that looks real, and illegal real horn? o Companies benefitting from making synthetic horn have shown very little commitment to use their profits to help the core problem of rhino poaching; besides which, those profits would meet only a tiny fraction of the total rhino protection costs that would remain to be met as long as demand reduction campaigns falter, as they would with the marketing of synthetic horn. o Finally, the manufacture / marketing / sale of synthetic horn diverts funds and attention from the real problem: unsustainable levels of rhino poaching. A December 2015 National Geographicarticle covered the efforts of one such biotechnology outfit producing synthetic rhino horn (Pembroke) and outlined some conservationist concerns about the unintended consequences of such a venture: article I frankly dont see that its any better, to be honest, says Susie Watts, a consultant for WildAid and co-chair of the Species Survival Network Rhino Working Group, referring to Pembients move to put faux powder on the back burner. While shes aware that people buy rhino horn jewelry, Watts has never heard of rhino horn cell phone cases and chopsticks. But opposition to Pembients synthetic horn plans extends beyond the possible new market it could create. Theres very little, if any, relief on wild populations when we see commercial farming develop or commercial trade of a protected species, says Douglas Hendrie, manager of the wildlife crime and investigations unit for conservation group Education for Nature - Vietnam. The wild trade continues right alongside. Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, also believes that inserting fake horn into the market could counteract efforts to educate people about why they shouldnt buy wild horn, a strategy most activists push as the best way to reduce demand. If you start to nuance that message with some rhino horn is good, some of it is bad, some of it is legal, some of it is illegal, he says, you lose people and lose the clarity of the message. Theres also concern that fake horn could increase the workload for law enforcement in countries already struggling to contain the illicit trade. According to Hendrie, Vietnam doesnt have the enforcement capacity to regulate the black market along with the legal one. A February 2016 followup article presented a five-point set of objections to the introduction of genetic copies of rhino horn to the market, filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity: presented Additionally, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace commented: Experience demonstrates that efforts to 'flood the market' with products produced from protected wildlifeeither by producing synthetic alternatives or raising animals in captivity for harvestoften fail to achieve their stated goal. Such efforts often create more demand from consumers, even as products from wild animals and plants continue to command a premium over synthetic or farmed alternatives. ... We also have significant concerns about injecting products into the market that would make it harder for law enforcement to detect poached and trafficked wildlife products, or allow criminals to disguise the source of illegal products by commingling them with these alternatives. In short, it's true that at least four biotechnology firms have engaged in some form of development of synthetic material genetically identical to rhino horn. Although progress in that area was initially hailed as a potential anti-poaching measure, conservation groups and wildlife officials have since expressed strong skepticism that the overall effects on the rhinoceros population of selling such material wouldn't be deleterious.  Members of both groups have espoused positions opposing the introduction of fake rhino horn to any market, citing anticipated demand uptick and burdens on already taxed enforcement agencies. Actman, Jani.  "Can Fake Rhino Horn Stop the Poaching of an Endangered Species?"
  National Geographic.  2 December 2015. Neme, Laurel.  "Petition Seeks Ban on Trade in Fake Rhino Horn."
  National Geographic.  10 February 2016. Save the Rhino International.  "Joint Statement by the International Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International."
  July 2015. In July 2023, a series of imageswent viral depicting elderly women with what appeared to begiant crocheted cats. went viral  The images were reposted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and 9GAG, gaining millions of views. We also found them on Chinese and Russian-speaking websites. Facebook Twitter Instagram Reddit 9GAG Chinese Russian The pictures in question were originally posted on July 3, 2023, by Instagram account @ai.artandcat. In the bio section of that profile, we found a link to aFacebook pagetitled, "Lydia's AI Art and Cats," with a user namedLydia Masterova marked as the page's owner. Masterova had a history online of sharing AI-generated pictures. posted @ai.artandcat page  Wywietl ten post na Instagramie  Post udostpniony przez Cats and art (@ai.artandcat) Post udostpniony przez Cats and art (@ai.artandcat)  Masterova's images of crocheted cats had telltale signs of being generated by artificial intelligence (AI) software. For instance, the women in the photographs had abnormally large hands or an incorrect number of toes. Each picture depicted an elderly lady with white hair; however, the women did not appear to be the same person as various characteristics, such as their hairstyles and eyeglasses, varied significantly.   (Instagram account @ai.artandcat)   (Instagram account @ai.artandcat) AI-detection tools, such as AI or Not and IIlluminarty, confirmed the images were created using artificial intelligence software. Therefore, we have rated this claim as "Fake." AI or Not IIlluminarty In July 2023, Masterova shared a message via herInstagramaccount and Facebook page thatintroduced herself and explained that she started creating AI-generated content to distract herself from the war in Ukraine, which is where she is from: Instagram Facebook Here's a bit about me (and giant crochet cats). My name is Lydia, and I'm from Ukraine ??. A couple of months ago, to distract myself from the horrors of war, I immersed myself in the imaginative world of AI. Before that, I was a cat photographer and had always loved cats and animals in general, so it was only natural to start with them. At first, I incorporated cats into paintings by famous artists, hence the word "art" in my page name. However, I soon realized that almost everyone had already drawn the Mona Lisa with a cat or as a cat. Then, I attempted to draw hybrids of cats and other animals, but AI struggled to achieve that.When my parents, family, and friends in Ukraine were under bombing, I thought posting random stuff on my Facebook account was inappropriate, so I created a new page and Instagram account.And now, let's talk about these giant crocheted cats! She said her passion for various crafts inspired her to create the images of crocheted items. Since posting the images, she acknowledged they have circulated online without proper attribution, or disclaimers to note that they're not real. In the Instagram and Facebook post, she said she did not write captions for her original posts sharing the AI-generated images because"it's considered a bad form to use watermarks" in online groups dedicated to such content, and she did not have access to a computer to do so.The message continued: I used to do lots of various crafts, from crocheting and knitting to sewing soft toys. Now, I draw whatever comes to my mind first. During my vacation in early July, these crocheted cats were born. In AI groups, it's considered a bad form to use watermarks. It was very late at night, and I couldn't access a computer, so I posted them on my page and in the Midjourney Cat group without a caption. By morning, I found that the images had spread across various pages and groups. People from Europe, Asia, Australia, and even South Africa write to me saying they find these cats in crochet groups. I never posted them as actual crochet, and unfortunately, I can't do anything about it. Every day, I come across posts with titles like "My 80-year-old grandma finally finished her cat," and so on. Someone even posted it on National Geographic. When I tried to message them, 90% didn't reply, and a couple of times, I received rude responses, claiming that since it's AI, I have no rights to these images. But a few pages did credit me in their posts, though still with headlines not of my creation. Lesson learned. Now, I'll always add captions. The cat photographs aside,most of Masterova's images on Facebook and Instagram appeared tohavea watermark, including a series of elderly women riding what appeared to be crocheted motorcycles. That series was captioned, "Badass grandmas on their crochet bikes." most have   (Facebook page Lydia's AI Art and Cats) Masterova said the viral crochet images have brought her new attention online, including from people who do not like her work: Before the crochet cats, I had around 100 followers, and now the haters have come. Some send me to hell, others wish for my hard drive to burn, and some think using AI is stealing from real artists. It's just a hobby. I don't sell anything. I don't make money. I simply come up with nonexistent things, using my imagination. If someone doesn't like it, they can always scroll past it. AsAI-generated content becomes more prevalent on social media, it's worth knowing how to spot such images. We encourage you to read our tips. AI-generated read our tips On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Donald Trump Mike Pence Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris  the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. George Floyd For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Factba.se transcription Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund  do you know that is?  which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office.  Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: "Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage." Sen. Tom Cotton tweet   Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. one conservative website Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.  including many celebrities more than $30 million accounts "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota," she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. @MNFreedomFund   In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media  or via any other public statement  that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed "Minnesota Freedom Fund"  debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Federal Election Commission Center for Responsive Politics Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: "No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris." We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) has pledged Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case  or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest  they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: inequities states Weve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge  and we wont now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness  People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice  Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyds death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings  whether chaotic or peaceful  did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail  and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. American Bail Coalition The Washington Post "We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way," the MFF website said. "[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising werent detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail." said However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. AK-47-style mini Draco pistol woman The Washington Post news reports Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July  a case that was unrelated to the protests  was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to "strengthen our internal procedures" to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. news reports statement In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters "get out of jail and do more damage," like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false."