Is this photograph depicting legislators playing solitaire?
A photograph which appears to show representatives playing solitaire on their laptops during a legislative session has certainly struck a chord among many viewers, undoubtedly because it seemingly confirms a widely held view of elected representatives as paid fat cats frittering away their time at frivolous pursuits rather than engaging in serious governmental problem solving efforts.  The photograph is real, although it has erroneously been attributed to a number of different legislative bodies, from the U.S. Congress to a variety of state legislatures: This picture is worth a trillion $$ This was sent to me showing our Congress at work. It was said that this was while Congress was in session, appears to be true, and that it was during the health care debate. Even if it wasnt during the health care debate, if this is how they spend their time while they are supposed to be deciding on important issues, then I not only want a rebate on my tax dollars, I want to see some new people who actually care about what is happening and are paying close attention to the matter at hand sitting in those seats. Seems like we dont need to be sending them on any more expen$ive vacations, theyre already on one. It seems to me that if all we are doing is paying these congressmen and women a gigantic salary to sit in congressional session and play solitaire or whatever, its time to bring most of them back home by replacement. Democrats, republicans, independents  it makes no difference. The bills theyre passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every key stroke Fire 'em all! Folks we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people that are being paid by our tax dollars. Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc. These are the folks that can't get the budget out by Oct. 1, Seriously!!! So, we've got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news 'reporters' as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo's will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!! The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on 31 August 2009 by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn." Jessica Hill Ms. Hill described the reaction to her photograph as follows: I have received a great deal of mail and even a few calls from people all over the country over the last couple of months about the photograph I have as a lead off image on my member page. Some viewers have even gone so far to say they believe the photograph is not authentic. I take my profession very serious. There is nothing staged or altered in the photograph and it is insulting to me to have been accused of otherwise from people who do not even know me. Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents: apology It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game even for just a few minutes during the final House session on the budget. I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state. My actions were inexcusable. I do want my constituents to know that my poor judgment for a few moments in no way means I ignored your interests in representing you on this very serious matter. Over the past seven months, as a member of the General Assembly's Finance Committee, I have participated fully in the budget process and have played an active role in crafting a budget that provides the necessary services that our communities so desperately need while at the same time minimizing any negative impact on the city of Bridgeport and its people. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I look forward to having the continued privilege of representing you and your interests in Hartford. I thank you in advance for your understanding and have been humbled by those of you who have already expressed your understanding and forgiveness. Brown, DeNeen L.  "For a Day, First Lady Becomes a Lunch Lady."
  The Washington Post.  6 March 2009. Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence What We Eat, Too?"
  Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009. Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."
  The Australian.  7 March 2009.
Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: 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. On Jan. 15, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The signing ceremony was historic  it was only the third time in U.S. history that a president has been impeached. And, according to critics, the event was bit unusual because Pelosi used multiple pens to sign the documents and then handed the writing utensils out as souvenirs.  A rumor soon started to circulate on social media positing that the pens Pelosi had used had cost an obscene amount of money. One Twitter user, for instance, claimed that each pen Pelosi used cost $2,025. A message on Facebook held that Pelosi had used a total of $15,000 worth of pens to sign these documents. This number was exaggerated even further by another Facebook user who claimed that each pen cost $15,000, and that the signing ceremony used a total of $450,000 pens: claimed Facebook claimed   The most prominent claim, and one that was re-shared verbatim by several different accounts, stated: "Pelosi uses $15,000.00 worth of bullet pens to impeach the president. President Trump uses $1.99 Sharpie to sign $2 billion trade deal with China. That's the difference in a business man and a worthless professional."  re-shared verbatim several different While this claim was widespread, it was not supported by evidence. We have encountered no news reports, budget statements, or any other credible information to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens (or $450,000 worth of pens or $2,025 per pen) to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump. Furthermore, these claims appear to have originated with random social media users who would not have been privy to this sort of information. As these users appear to have been making this information up out of whole cloth, it isn't surprising that the alleged cost of these pens varies from one claim to the next.  Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, told us that the pens Pelosi used to sign the articles of impeachment cost just under $15 apiece, and that they were the same type of pen used to sign other pieces of legislation. At $15 a piece, that means the total cost for these pens was about $450, well under the $15,000 (or $450,000) amount claimed in those baseless social media posts.  Does Trump use a $2 Sharpie to sign legislation?  In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 "Century II" pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama's administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail.  placed an order However, Trump has since switched from the Century II pen to a Sharpie pen. While Sharpie pens can certainly be purchased in the $2 range, Trump doesn't use a Sharpie that you can purchase at a school-supply store. The Commander-in-Chief reportedly uses a custom Sharpie with his signature inscribed down the side. You can see an image of the pen Trump uses to sign executive orders here. custom Sharpie here We reached out to the White House and Newell Brands, the company that manufacturers Sharpies, for more information on Trump's pen. While we can't say exactly how much Trump spends per pen, it seems reasonable to assume that this custom pen is worth more than a $2 generic Sharpie, but well under the $100 pens used at the start of his administration. The "Official Donald J. Trump Fine Point Markers" available via the Trump campaign shop are sold for $15 for a five-pack (which works out to $3 piece).  Trump campaign shop Is it unusual to use multiple pens to sign important legislation? In addition to claiming that Pelosi used obscenely expensive pens to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump, many social media users were upset that the House Speaker used multiple writing utensils and then handed them out as souvenirs to mark the occasion. However, this isn't an unusual practice.  In fact, on the same day Pelosi handed out the impeachment pens to various lawmakers, Trump performed a similar ritual in the Oval Office after signing a trade deal with China.  The photograph above is available via Getty Images with the following caption: "WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (2nd L) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (R), hands out pens to Senators after he and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, signed phase 1 of a trade deal between U.S. and China, in the East Room at the White House, on January 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Phase 1 is expected to cut tariffs and promote Chinese purchases of U.S. farm, and manufactured goods while addressing disputes over intellectual property. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)"  Getty Images Time Magazine explained that this tradition  using multiple pens to sign a document and then to give those pens to various people involved  dates back to at least the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office: explained The pen used to sign historic legislation itself becomes a historical artifact. The more pens a President uses, the more thank-you gifts he can offer to those who helped create that piece of history. The White House often engraves the pens, which are then given as keepsakes to key proponents or supporters of the newly signed legislation. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he reportedly used more than 75 pens ... and gave one of the first ones to Martin Luther King Jr. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Everett McKinley Dirksen also received pens for their aid in shuttling the bill through Congress. And in 1996, President Clinton gave the four pens he used to sign the Line-Item Veto bill  which allowed Presidents to veto individual sections of legislation rather than the entire thing  to those most likely to appreciate the bill's impact: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The U.S. Senate also provided souvenir pens in 1999 during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. According to a contemporary report in the Akron Beacon, senators used silver Parker Vector pens (worth about $10 a piece) to sign the oath book after they were sworn in and were allowed to keep the pens as a memento:   Unfortunately, the pens used during Clinton's trial contained a typo (the term "United States Senator" on the pen was misspelled "Untied States Senator") and had to be replaced.  replaced Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign the Articles of Impeachment? In summary, no evidence exists to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens to sign the articles of impeachment. This claim originated with random social media accounts and was not supported with documentation. Furthermore, Pelosi's chief of staff refuted the claim, saying the pens cost just under $15 a piece. While some may find it objectionable to hand out souvenir pens after signing such a grave document, it isn't unusual. The tradition of using multiple pens to sign important documents, and then giving those pens away to the people involved, can be traced back decades.  Klein, Betsy.  "'Trump Sticks With Tradition for Presidential Pen Choice."
  CNN  27 January 2017. Hanbury, Mary.  "'Make it Look Rich': Trump Told Sharpie to Create a Custom Pen For Him to Sign Important Documents."
  Business Insider  16 November 2018. O'Rourke, Ciara.  "No, Nancy Pelosis Impeachment Pens Didnt Cost $2,025 Each."   Politifact.  17 January 2020. Akron Beacon.  "Pens Ink Spot in History."
  8 January 1999. Suddath, Claire.  "Why Did Obama Use So Many Pens to Sign the Health Care Bill?"   Time Magazine.  24 March 2010. Correction [18 January 2020]: The markers available via the Trump campaign store are sold in packs of 5, not individually as originally stated. The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback In January 2024, as Israels bombardment of Gaza continued, a pair of photographs went viral showing the apparent impact of the violence on Gazas universities. viral Al-Azhar University in the north of the Gaza Strip was targeted by Israeli forces in particular, and since late 2023, a number of posts on Reddit, TikTok and X appeared to show what the educational institution looked like "before" and "after" it was hit by Israeli strikes. targeted Reddit TikTok X    The above images accurately depict one of Al-Azhar Universitys buildings before and after military operations by Israel in Gaza. We found photographic evidence from reliable news sources as well as from the universitys official Facebook page verifying the claim, and as such rate this story as True. In November 2023, Al-Azhar University shared the before and after images in a Facebook post detailing the destruction that took place on the university campus after bombardment from Israel. One picture in particular showed the "before" version of the untouched building for the Faculty of King Hassan II For Environmental Sciences and Agriculture. November 2023 The post stated (English version via Google Translate): Part of the destruction and damage caused to university facilities and buildings as a result of the Israeli occupation forces bombing of the new university campus buildings south of Gaza City. (Screenshot via Facebook) We found images of this particular building from different angles in years prior including from the Moroccan press agency in 2021 that detailed a new specialty for Veterinary Medicine had been made available at the university. A news release from the Kingdom of Morocco noted that the facility had been reconstructed with Moroccos help and was inaugurated in 2015. angles Moroccan press agency news release On Nov. 22, 2023, Reuters published the photograph of the same building after it was destroyed, with the caption: The remains of Al-Azhar University of Gaza is seen, amid the ongoing ground operation of the Israeli army against Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, November 22, 2023. [...] EDITOR'S NOTE: REUTERS PHOTOGRAPHS WERE REVIEWED BY THE IDF AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE EMBED. NO PHOTOS WERE REMOVED. published (Screenshot via Reuters) We determined that this was the same structure as the one posted by the Al-Azhar University Facebook page by observing the matching architectural details, including the white domes atop the building, the remnants of the signage and arch at the front of the building. Geneva-based Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, an independent nonprofit organization, said Israel was systematically destroying universities in Gaza in stages, with the first stage including the bombing of the Islamic and Al-Azhar universities. said Getty Images also published photographs of other Al-Azhar University buildings that had been destroyed by the bombardment. A New York Times interactive from Dec. 12, 2023, mapped out all the neighborhoods with satellite imagery that lay in ruins from thousands of Israeli strikes and the ground invasion. Switching between the Before and Now tabs in the interactive, visible damage can be seen on Al-Azhar Universitys campus, as well as the noticeable Israeli tanks in the courtyard. published New York Times The Israeli military said they had destroyed buildings on Al-Azhar Universitys campus because the Hamas terror organization used the university building for the purpose of fighting against our forces. said They claimed to find: terror infrastructure, including an underground tunnel that ran from the university's yard and [continued] to a school one kilometer away. Furthermore, numerous weapons, including explosive devices, rocket parts, launchers, explosive device detonation systems, and several technological assets were located and taken for an intelligence analysis and investigation. claimed We were unable to determine independently if the Israeli militarys findings were true. According to an Al Jazeera report, in more than 100 days of Israeli bombardment, hundreds of schools, including those run by the United Nations, had been bombed and students and teachers killed. Centers of higher education, including universities, have been completely paralyzed and according to Wafa, a Palestinian news agency, 12 institutions of higher learning have been either damaged or destroyed. Al Jazeera Wafa Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said the Israeli army killed 94 university professors along with hundreds of teachers, and called the attacks an intentional destruction of Palestinian cultural and historical properties including universities, schools, libraries, and archives. said 26 November 2023, Palestinian Territories, Gaza City: Palestinians... Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/november-2023-palestinian-territories-gaza-city-news-photo/1803522346. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Fabian, Emanuel. IDF Says It Destroyed Buildings Containing Hamas Infrastructure at Gaza Citys Al-Azhar University. Times of Israel, 8 Dec. 2023, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-it-destroyed-buildings-containing-hamas-infrastructure-at-gaza-citys-al-azhar-university/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Hassan II Faculty of Gaza, New Vision of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. Map Ecology, 1 Mar. 2021, https://mapecology.ma/en/slider-en/hassan-ii-faculty-gaza-new-vision-agricultural-environmental-sciences/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Holder, Josh. Gaza After Nine Weeks of War. The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2023. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/gaza-strip-satellite-images-israel-invasion.html.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. How Israel Has Destroyed Gazas Schools and Universities. Al Jazeera, 24 Jan. 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/24/how-israel-has-destroyed-gazas-schools-and-universities. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Israel Kills Dozens of Academics, Destroys Every University in the Gaza Strip. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, 20 Jan. 2024. https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6108/Israel-kills-dozens-of-academics,-destroys-every-university-in-the-Gaza-Strip. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "GAZA: Inauguration of Hassan II Faculty Financed by King Mohammed VI." Morocco World News, Aug. 2015. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/08/166428/gaza-inauguration-of-hassan-ii-faculty-financed-by-king-mohammed-vi. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/GAZA-EMBED." Reuters Pictures, Nov. 22, 2023. https://pictures.reuters.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXDNCBY70&SMLS=1&RW=1437&RH=685&POPUPPN=1&POPUPIID=2C0FQEP2VUCPS. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Upon Kings Order, Islamic Affairs Minister Takes Part in Inauguration of Hassan II Faculty in Gaza. Kingdom of Morocco, 24 Aug. 2015, https://www.maroc.ma/en/news/upon-kings-order-islamic-affairs-minister-takes-part-inauguration-hassan-ii-faculty-gaza.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Weapons Found in Al-Azhar University. Israeli Defense Forces, 8 Dec. 2023, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/hamas-israel-war-24/war-on-hamas-2023-resources/weapons-found-in-al-azhar-university/.Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke is blaming Gov. Greg Abbott for high inflation in Texas, taking a page out of the GOP playbook in attacking President Joe Biden. O'Rourke released anInstagram videoon April 23 with the caption, Greg Abbott is the single greatest driver of inflation in the state of Texas. TV news clips were stitched together with clips of O'Rourke speaking. In one clip in the montage, O'Rourke says, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. O'Rourke went on to say, When you add this to the other inflation that he's causing ...  with more clips pointing to electricity bills,traffic backups at the border in April due to additional commercial vehicle inspections Abbott ordered that he said would improve border security, and the rising costs of internet and phone for rural Texans. Overall, O'Rourke is saying Abbott is exacerbating consumer prices in Texas, which were already rising nationwide. We looked at one component of the ad: that jaw-dropping number of a $20 billion increase in property taxes. Is it true? Nationally, inflation hit a 40-year highaccording to March data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prompting criticism of Biden, especially as inflationrelates to government spending. O'Rourke's campaign pointed to aTexas Taxpayers and Research Association reporttitled Relief from Rising Values: 2019 Property Tax Reforms Cutting Tax Rates at a Record Pace. The report looked at the effects of legislation by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, and state Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, that overhauled the school finance system and local government budgeting practices and tamped down property tax increases for Texans. The association found property taxes are continuing to rise, but at a slower rate. The campaign pointed specifically to a figure in the report depicting Texas local property taxes from 2011 to 2021. Property taxes levied were just over $50 billion in 2015, when Abbott took office, and just over $70 billion in 2021. The difference is about a $20 billion increase. Data on estimated revenue from local property taxes is available on the state comptroller's website. According to the2018-19 biennial reporton property taxes by the comptroller's office, property taxes totaled $52.2 billion in 2015. Comptroller data on school district, city, county and special district property taxes indicatethere was an estimated $73 billion in property taxes collected statewide in 2021. That's at least a $20 billion increase and in line with the analysis by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. In the six years before Abbott's election, property taxes increased to a lesser extent, but that property tax growth was constrained by the Great Recession. To note, while O'Rourke is appealing to voters who may also be homeowners, both commercial and residential property taxes are included here. Austin Community Collegeeconomics professor Stuart Greenfield, whose state government career included work with economic models and how Texas distributes money to school districts, said just over half of the 2019 school district taxable value of property was single-family and multifamily homes. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association is a lobbying organization that primarily spends its money on research. Its policy advocacy has a fiscal conservative bent, the association's President Dale Craymer said, but the organization doesn't advocate for the policies of one party over the other. Craymer said O'Rourke spoke correctly of the group's report based on the data it analyzed from the comptroller's office. The implication of O'Rourke's ad, however, is that Abbott is responsible for rising property taxes. Craymer said the role of state government is indirect at best when it comes to property taxes because rates are set locally and not by the governor or Legislature. Basically, the process by which rates are set and adopted is laid out in state law, Craymer said. The Legislature and the governor obviously are responsible for drafting and putting those laws in effect. But the state really doesn't have a direct say in the amount of property taxes individual jurisdictions raise. The association's report found taxes would have been somewhat higher without twoproperty tax changes by the Legislature in 2019. One created a process where school district property taxes would decrease over time for senior citizens, whose school district taxes are capped. The second change, Craymer said, increased the school district property tax homestead exemption for homeowners from $25,000 to $40,000, saving homeowners about $180 per year. Also in 2019, the Legislature required cities, counties and most special districts to seek voter approval to set a property tax that raises revenues more than 3.5%. For junior colleges and hospital special districts, the threshold for voter approval is 8%. For school districts, it is 2.5%. State policy also affects property values, and increases in value are tied to increases in taxes. Richard Auxier,senior policy associate at the Tax Policy Center under the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, said the value of Texas homes is increasing alongside the rest of the country. While you can frame that as property taxes went up, you can flip that to home values went up, Auxier said. It's always going to be a trade-off, because people want the value of their homes to increase, but people don't want their taxes to go up. Texas Republicans have campaigned on property tax relief, too. Abbottadded property tax reliefto the Legislature's third special session agenda in 2021 thatresulted ina now-approved amendment to the Texas Constitution. Abbottsimilarly publicized his support for property tax reliefas a priority in a May 2 tweet ahead of May 7 elections. Abbott'scampaign responded to O'Rourke's adby saying Abbott reduced property taxes by $18 billion since taking office and O'Rourke increased property taxes as an El Paso City Council member. Texas voters approvedProposition 2, which raises the homestead exemption for school district property taxes from $25,000 to $40,000. They also approvedProposition 1, which corrected a 2019 oversight in tax relief that did not apply to homeowners who are disabled or 65 or older because their school tax burden is capped. O'Rourke said in an April 23 Instagram video on rising inflation in Texas that, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. Data presented in biennial reports and on the comptroller's website show that estimated revenue collected through property taxes increased by more than $20 billion. O'Rourke's figure was accurate. But property taxes are set locally, not by the state. Although state policies might indirectly affect property taxes, the governor's role in setting property taxes is indirect. We rate this as Mostly True. An unexpected controversy took root after the July 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC) involving key speaker Khizr Khan, who took to the convention stage to speak about Donald Trump, Muslims in America, and the loss of his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan: Captain Humayun Khan   Khan's speech was preceded by brief introductory footage of Hillary Clinton describing his immigration to the United States, and how his son was killed in action in Iraq while guarding his Army unit. Khan reiterated his son's story and challenged Donald Trump (who has at times proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States) to read the U.S. Constitution: Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings ... Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America." If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities: women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [Waved "Pocket Constitution."] In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law." Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. Trump repeatedly issued comments about Khan via Twitter as the Khans were being interviewed about the speech and about Trump's reaction to it: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016 I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016  This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2016 August 1, 2016  On 31 July 2016, the dispute escalated when Trump suggested to ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times' Maureen Dowd that Khan's wife Ghazala was silent during her husband's DNC speech because, as a Muslim female, she was not permitted to speak: Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a nice guy and that he wished him the best of luck. But, he added, If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably  maybe she wasnt allowed to have anything to say, you tell me. Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Id like to hear his wife say something. A day earlier, Mrs. Khan told MSNBC that she was unable to bring herself to speak at the convention due to her ongoing grief over her son's death: Ms. Khan did speak to MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell, saying she cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. When she saw her sons photograph on the screen behind her on the stage in Philadelphia, she said, I couldnt take it. I controlled myself at that time, she said, while choking back tears. It is very hard. On 31 July, Ghazala Khan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post addressing the ongoing controversy. The same day Mrs. Khan's editorial appeared, bloggers Theodore and Walid Shoebat published a lengthy polemic stitching together circumstantial evidence to suggest Khizr Khan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood: editorial Shoebat polemic The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to trump Trumps Muslim immigration policy of limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. But not so fast. Trump we have your back. The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States). With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadans writing is greatly acknowledged." page However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:  The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood." That "recent report" was a Politico article that described the Khan "familys journey from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, and from there to Boston," which in turn referenced Khan's 2005 interview with the Washington Post about the recent loss of his son Humayun. In its original context, the interview revealed a very different picture than the one painted by the Shoebats: article interview [Khan] and his wife would talk often to their three boys about why they decided to come to the United States, he began. It was the 1970s, and Pakistan was under military rule. They came to Silver Spring to have more freedom and opportunity. "It sounds cliche," said Khan, 54, "but that is the story." His son was always reading books about Thomas Jefferson; that part of his passion was certainly his father's doing. When the boys were small, Khan would take them to the Jefferson Memorial. He'd have them stand there and read the chiseled, curving words about swearing hostility against tyrannies over the minds of men ... It was not exactly surprising, he continued, that Humayun quoted Jefferson in his admissions essay for the University of Virginia, a line about freedom requiring vigilance. It was a bit surprising, though, when he signed up for ROTC and told his dad that after graduation in 2000, he wanted to join the Army. "He said that it seems only fair and logical to join the Army," Khan said. "Because he wanted to complete the journey  he felt that ROTC had completed him as a person, and he wanted to give back. That's what he wanted to do." It was logical, Khan said, and how was a lawyer going to argue with logic? Humayun finished his four years of service and was preparing for law school when the Army called him back to duty. As he was moving into Iraq last year, Khan called him and they spoke briefly, a conversation he has turned over in his mind a million times since. His son said, "Remember I wrote that article for admission to U-Va.?" Khan said, pausing, taking the pen cap off and putting it on again, his voice steady. "He said, 'I meant it.' He said that. He wasn't going there through some thoughtless process, or thoughtlessly following orders. He thought he was serving a purpose." Khan recounted the details of his son's death to the paper in 2005, noting that by all accounts his son sent his unit to safety before running towards a suicide bomber: Over time, his colonel and his fellow soldiers told Khan how his son died, and that, too, had some sort of horrible logic to it. Humayun's job at the base in Baqubah was to inspect the soldiers at the gates, where crowds of Iraqis would sometimes gather. Humayun went early that morning, which was just like him. He saw a taxi speeding toward the gates, too fast, he thought. He yelled for everyone to hit the dirt. Then, as was his nature, he went running toward it, they said. "Ten or 15 steps with his hand outstretched," his father said, stretching his own arm out in front of him almost a year later, telling some ghost taxi to stop in a downtown conference room. The explosives detonated before the car could ram the gates or the mess hall nearby, where several hundred soldiers were eating breakfast. The Shoebat page was something of a Gish Gallop, patching together a pile of loosely or unrelated details to paint a picture of a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator in the Army who was killed before he could complete some undescribed subversive mission: Gish Gallop I can go on and on. Is it likely that Khans son was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished? Only another type of investigation will determine that. Do they ever mention how many soldiers have died because of Muslim traitors? Do they ever bring up how many Christians in the US military were killed? Yet the modernists and homosexuals continue to attack Christians. But soon everything we need to know will be uncovered. As we say in the Middle East: the snow always melts and the sh*t under it will soon be revealed. The Shoebats' insinuations about the younger Khan directly conflict with all other published accounts about him. Had Humayun's intent in joining the Army been one of sabotage, there would be no reason to expect he'd ultimately lay down his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing scores of other American soldiers  yet by every telling, that is exactly how Capt. Humayun Khan died. The other big "smoking gun" Shoebat cited to support their theory that Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood operative is his work as an immigration lawyer. By their rationale, Khan bears a grudge against Donald Trump for the candidate's myriad statements about Muslims and immigration  but although it's true that Khizr Khan and his sons were Muslims immigrants to the United States, none of the "evidence" presented by Shoebat remotely supported the idea that Khan is an operative of the Muslim brotherhood. Not only were most of the points made about Khan by Shoebat unrevealing and tenuous, the heroic death of Humayun Khan flies in the face of claims the family were Muslims operatives seeking to harm Americans or work against U.S. interests. Capt. Khan enlisted in the U.S. Army by choice and died protecting his fellow soldiers; by contrast, the only "evidence" linking his family to the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant, decades-old papers written about OPEC and Islamic law by Khizr Khan before he immigrated to America.  Haberman, Maggie and Richard A. Oppel, Jr.  "Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire."
  The New York Times.  30 July 2016. Khan, Ghazala.  "Ghazala Khan: Trump Criticized My Silence. He Knows Nothing About True Sacrifice."
  The Washington Post.  31 July 2016. Khan, Khzir.  "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law."
  Houston Journal of International Law.  1983. McCrummen, Stephanie.  "Khizr Khans Loss: A Grieving Father of a Soldier Struggles to Understand."
  The Washington Post.  22 March 2005. Shoebat, Theodore and Walid Shoebat.  "What The Media Is Not Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump ..."
  Shoebat.  31 July 2016. Timsit, Annabelle.  "Seven Minutes That Shook the Convention."
  Politico.  29 July 2016. In August 2017, a national debate about the display of Confederate flags and monuments once again gained steam after a protest of the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly. Charlottesville In the wake of that incident, several cities (and protestors) moved to quickly take down monuments, statues, and plaques. Meanwhile, rumors appeared that Congress had passed two laws retroactively declaring Confederate soldiers United States veterans, which means that removing the statues is illegal. Some of the claims were bolstered by a link to an extremely dubious web site: statues illegal dubious Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines that fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, Approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Army/ Navy/ Marine Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans. Additionally, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN. The rumor also appeared as a meme on the Facebook page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" on 16 August 2017: appeared meme   The same image was previously shared by the same Facebook page in a July 2015, just after a gunman in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine black churchgoers. According to the meme, two acts of Congress (Public Law 810 of 1929 and Public Law 85-425 of 1958) bestows upon Confederate soldiers the benefits and status of a United States military veteran.  shared Charleston Public Law 810 refers to Part II, Chapter 23 of U.S. Code 38 which says that the government should, when requested, pay to put up monuments or headstones for unmarked graves for three groups of people: Code 38 (1) Any individual buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery. (2) Any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery (but not buried there), except for those persons or classes of persons enumerated in section 2402(a)(4), (5), and (6) of this title. (3) Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War. No portion of the law appears to confer any privilege other than markers for graves of Confederate soldiers, nor does it grant Confederate soldiers status equal to those of veterans of the United States military. As of 1901, 482 individuals (not all soldiers) were already interred in the Confederate section of Arlington National Cemetery. interred In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers, but did not grant them U.S. veteran status. Public Law 85-425 was passed 23 May 1958, entitling the widows of deceased Confederate soldiers (what few were left by 1958) to military pensions: pardoned passed To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. A National Archives and Records Administration document details the matter of Confederate soldiers and pensions, and shows that the law seems to recognize those who fought for the Confederacy as veterans of a war, but not necessarily of the United States military. document The last recorded Confederate soldier deaths were in 1959, meaning that the 1957 law had negligible effects for those under its provisions, and in any event the law again conferred no status or other benefit to Confederate soldiers themselves.  1959 effects We reached out to several historians, none of whom wished to be quoted on the record. Several were dubious about the purported laws. One, a scholar who specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, told us that he, too, had trouble locating them: [It's] clear that Public Law 85-425, section 410 of 1958 was intended solely to provide a symbolic, Civil War Centennial gesture late-life pension to Walter Williams, the supposed only surviving Confederate veteran, and did not apply in any way to any other Confederate soldiers. Of course it turned out (as many people knew then) that Williams was not, in fact, a Confederate veteran  but the desire to still have a living link to the War proved more important than fact. I have been no more successful than anyone else in finding the supposed Public Law 810 passed in 1929. But, given my experience with other claims based on legislation introduced or passed in Congress during that era, I would surmise that any such law was symbolic and meant as a gesture. On the other hand, there was the 1906 Foraker Law that began Federal involvement in caring for Confederate graves. You have probably seen this VA publication [PDF] and consulted John Neffs important work, Honoring the Civil War Dead (University Press of Kansas, 2005) about that issue. Neff makes clear that Federal money spent on maintaining Federal graves always kept the distinctions between the graves  and the service  of Federal versus Confederate soldiers. PDF [There is, however] the decision in the case of Patrick G. Griffin, III vs. Department of Veterans Affairs issued by the US Court of Appeals 4th District ... the decision ultimately affirmed the VAs contention that the Confederate prisoners buried at Point Lookout were buried and honored as American soldiers and, therefore (the issue before the court) there was no obligation to allow Confederate flags to fly over their graves. decision The cited ruling did not recognize the flag of the Confederacy as a legitimate American flag suitable for display in veterans' memorials. The Veterans' Affairs document to which the historian pointed, Federal Stewardship of Confederate Dead, contained historical context about Confederate burials and the evolution of federal involvement in the interment of their dead, and included President William McKinley's 1898 remarks to legislators in Georgia, noting that was a time when "no disabled Confederate veteran was eligible to live in a federal soldiers home, receive a pension, or, when they died, be buried in a national cemetery": The Department of War had been content to allow Northern cemeteries where Confederates were interred to languish. However, after the Spanish-American War (1898), the federal government, led by President William McKinley, in the spirit of national reconciliation and in the postwar glow of recent victory, proposed that a loving nation would reach out and care for the graves of fallen Confederates. Recognition of these places as hallowed ground and the individuals interred in them as deserving of honor began with the creation of the Confederate section at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and continued with the renewal through 1916 of 1906 legislation that authorized federal funds to mark all Confederate graves. Until the turn of the 20th century, United States government interment of Confederate soldiers generally involved deceased prisoners buried during the Civil War on Union lands. In 2013, The Atlantic reported that the United States government continued to follow through on its subsequent promises to provide for all Confederate war dead: reported Providing headstones for America's fallen soldiers is a tradition that goes back to laws passed in 1867 and 1873 that ordered the Department of War to properly establish national cemeteries and furnish graves with headstones ... It wasn't until the 20th century, though, that Confederate veterans were included in this tradition. It started with legislation passed in 1906, at first providing headstones for a very limited number of Confederate veterans, specifically prisoners of war, "who died in Federal prisons and military hospitals in the North and who were buried near their places of confinement." That mandate for the Department of War was expanded to all Confederate graves with a law passed in 1929. Responsibility for headstones was transferred to the VA in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, which declared, "The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of" a number of categories of veterans and those who'd served the country or were buried in a national cemetery, including specifically, "Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War." It's no coincidence that many of these changes in attitude and law, and the erection of so many Confederate monuments and memorials, occurred around the turn of the 20th century. They followed the federal withdrawal from the South in 1877, a strategic retreat from the failed policies of reconstruction. When a debate over Confederate monuments and flags came under the national spotlight in June 2015, codified changes in burials and pensions enacted in 1929 and 1958 were puffed up to suggest that a nebulous act of Congress, either in the 1920s or the 1950s, officially declared that Confederate soldiers were the same as United States veterans in the eyes of the federal government. However, no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. Survivors of dead Confederate soldiers often took offense at measures appearing to equate them to Union soldiers, objections that died off as Southerners from the Civil War era did. Sturgis, Sue.  "Busting The Myth That Congress Made Confederate Vets Into U.S. Vets."
  Facing South.  24 July 2015. Weiss, Steven I.  "You Won't Believe What the Government Spends on Confederate Graves."
  The Atlantic.  19 July 2013. U.S. Code, Title 38.  "Part II, Chapter 23,  2306: Headstones, Markers, And Burial Receptacles."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. 85th Congress, H.R. 358.  "Public Law 85-424."
  23 May 1958. Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Andrew Johnson.  "Proclamation 179Granting Full Pardon And Amnesty For The Offense Of Treason Against The United States During The Late Civil War."
  25 December 1868. Arlington National Cemetery.  "Confederate Memorial."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs,National Cemetery Administration.  "Federal Stewardship Of Confederate Dead."
  July 2016. National Archives and Records Administration.  "Pensions For Military Service In The Army Of The Confederate States Of America."
  Accessed 23 August 2017. Correction [25 August 2017]:  Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article stated that President Andrew Jackson pardoned Confederate soldiers. The Trump administration has cited China's trade relationship with North Korea as a key lever to deter the regime from producing a nuclear missile capable of striking the U.S. We must all do our share, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the U.N. Security Council April 28. But China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is therefore particularly important. Tillersons remarks, which included a call for fresheconomic sanctions, came at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea. As aU.S. Navy strike groupsteamed toward the Korean Peninsula -- where28,500 American troopsstationed in South Korea are on alert following thelatest provocationsfrom Pyongyang -- President Donald Trump on April 27warnedof a possible major conflict if diplomatic efforts fail. Weve previouslylooked atTrumps claim about the degree of control Beijing wields over Pyongyang. With Tillerson citing Chinese-North Korean trade relations as a vital diplomatic pressure point, we decided to explore how much China accounts for North Koreas overall trade with the outside world. Finding accurate data for the secretive regime is a bit tricky since no North Korean equivalent of Trade.gov with troves of trade data exists, as Pyongyang treats this information as a state secret. But so-called mirror statistics, an accounting of data reconstructed from other countries reports, offer a workaround, albeit a flawed one, since the statistics dont capture some transactions. The available data tell a story of growing dependence on Chinese trade over roughly the past two decades as economic sanctions levied by the UN and individual countries, as well as other factors, have seen North Koreas trade with other partners fall drastically. In 2000, China, South Korea and Japan each accounted for about a fifth of the regime's overall trade, with the rest of the world making up the remaining roughly two-fifths. Since then, Chinas slice of the pie has more than quadrupled, according to Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. As sanctions have reduced South Korean and Japanese trade basically to nothing, trade has naturally become focused more on China, Haggard said. The rest of the world has not picked up the slack. Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics agreed that Chinas current position as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is largely a function of Pyongyangs strained relations with its neighbor to the south -- but he noted this could change if political winds shift. The reason that the percentage is so high is that South Korea, which was North Koreas second largest trade partner, imposed sanctions and trade between the two countries is virtually nil, Noland said. If South Korea were to resume trade relations (as it might in the next administration) Chinas share of North Korean trade would fall, but China would still be the countrys principal trade partner. Bilateral disputes led to Tokyo imposing sanctions that went even further than UN restrictions, said Haggard, who noted that the commercial risk associated with North Korea and its poor record on honoring property rights have also dissuaded potential trade partners. As South Korean and Japanese trade with Pyongyang fell, Chinas economy boomed, fueling increased trade with North Korea -- a relationship unfettered by bilateral sanctions, as Beijing has traditionally viewed the regime as an ally. China has also been accused of being less compliant with UN sanctions than other countries. As a result of these factors, the consensus among experts we spoke to is that China now accounts for roughly 90 percent of North Korean trade. Source: Stephan Haggard, professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California-San Diego. UNSCR refers to United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Yes, China accounts for more than 90 percent of North Koreas recorded trade, Noland said. They are the primary supplier of oil and the marginal supplier of grain. If China wanted to, it could bring North Korea to its knees. It has the economic leverage, but has been unwilling to use it, perhaps because it fears destabilizing the regime, he added. Our ruling Tillerson said, China account(s) for 90 percent of North Korean trade. Chinas role as an outsize trade partner of North Korea is a relatively new development. Since 2000, trade with the rest of the world has dropped off, as Chinese trade has risen. While the ratio is subject to change based on political factors, China now accounts for around 90 percent of North Korean trade. We rate Tillersons statement True. Claim:  The Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] I just a posting stating that the Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed Obama for President and I wonder if this could be true! Subject: STUNNING BLOW TO MITT ROMNEY - Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama  Salt Lake Tribune endorses President Obama over Mitt Romney, who organized city's Olympics. Looking for the truth is this was even published or it is false  Is this true? "Salt Lake City Tribune endorses Obama for re-election" Origins:  Despite the significant ties Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has to Utah's Salt Lake City  including his prominent membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is headquartered in that city), and his work as the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics  it came as a surprise to many people that the Salt Lake Tribune, the highest-circulation daily newspaper in Utah, endorsed his opponent, Barack Obama, in the 2012 presidential contest.  In a 19 October 2012 editorial entitled "Too Many Mitts," the Tribune cited the former Massachusetts governor's shifting positions on political issues and his refusal to provide specifics about his economic plans as its primary reasons for declining to endorse him for President: editorial From his embrace of the partys radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?" The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romneys next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor  their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear. More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out. [...] In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romneys domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust. Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first. The Tribune noted in a follow-up piece that their editorial endorsing Barack Obama "flooded the Trib's website and nearly logged an all-time high in unique visitors." Those who followed the 2008 presidential campaign closely might not have found the Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2012 too much of a surprise, as that newspaper endorsed him in the 2008 election as well.  (Contrary to common misbelief, the Deseret News, not the Tribune, is the Salt Lake City newspaper that is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)   endorsed Last updated:  24 October 2012    Means, Sean P.  "Mythbusting Site Confirms It: Tribune Endorses Obama."   The Salt Lake Tribune.  24 October 2012.    The Salt Lake Tribune.  "Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts."   19 October 2012. In Ohio, where union workers are a major presence and the manufacturing economy is hurting, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, called NAFTA. Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA, Obama said. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' The Clinton campaign says Obama is wrong, that Clinton was critical of NAFTA long before she started running for president. We looked into Clinton's past remarks on NAFTA and concluded that she has changed her tune, from once speaking favorably about it to now saying the agreement needs fixing. The agreement goes back to the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton ran against incumbent President George H.W. Bush. On Aug. 12 of that year, Bush finished negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would support NAFTA if elected, but would demand supplemental agreements to protect worker rights, the environment and sudden import surges. After Clinton won the presidency, his administration negotiated the side agreements and made NAFTA one of its top priorities. Vice President Al Gore memorably debated Ross Perot about NAFTA on CNN's Larry King Live. Congress approved the agreements, and it was hailed as a major political victory for the new president. As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report. Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir Living History, published in 2003: Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. During a 2004 teleconference on funding cuts for job training, Clinton was asked whether NAFTA should be revisited. She replied, I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in NAFTA. I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada, she said. Today, Clinton's campaign Web site says plainly, NAFTA was negotiated more than 14 years ago, and Hillary believes it has not lived up to its promises. At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for a trade timeout. We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA. Now, there's the issue of whether Clinton changed her mind because she was running for president. Clinton surrogates say she made remarks against NAFTA as early as March 2000 when she was running for Senate in New York. We could not confirm those remarks independently. But, as we've noted, she made pro-NAFTA remarks as late as 2003 (her autobiography) and 2004 (a teleconference). We won't say Clinton was a huge cheerleader for NAFTA, but she did speak favorably of it. And now she says it needs to be fixed. Was running for president the cause of this switch, or was it a gradual change of thinking? It's hard to say; the balance of evidence does not point to a harsh pivot point. But when we balance her previous statements against her more recent statements, we find that she has changed her sentiments when she speaks about NAFTA. We rate Obama's charge True.