The Lying Game
On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson
Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True. One series of online scams that seemingly never ends is the false claim that Tesla CEO Elon Musk had involvement in the creation of an inexpensive "electricity-saving" device that's about the size of a plug-in night light. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was also misleadingly mentioned as purportedly having endorsed the products, too. StopWatt is one of many names of a cheap and constantly rebranded "electricity-saving box" product that scammers have misleadingly associated with Musk, Granholm, Tesla (the company), and even Nikola Tesla himself. Pro Power Saver was one of the other rebranded product names, as we previously reported. reported According to images of such products, the only words that appeared on the physical devices were, "Intelligent Energy Saver. Electricity-Saving Box. The Result Is the Best." That last bit about "the result is the best" appeared to be poorly-translated English. Names like StopWatt and Pro Power Saver don't appear on the products, since the rebranding from "electricity-saving box" was apparently only a marketing tactic and had no bearing on the creation of the device. Scams for these "electricity-saving boxes" usually begin with an online ad displayed on a website or in an email newsletter that claims the compact, inexpensive device can save homeowners 90% off of their utility bill. Those ads then lead to a scammy article that falsely claims Musk created StopWatt.  Just as we previously wrote about the Pro Power Saver scam, with StopWatt, we don't recommend trusting any claims that say homeowners will be able to save such an enormous percentage off of their electricity bills. If this was truly possible, it would be one of the most popular products around today. Always remember with online offers that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. As for the scammy article, it often bears the publisher name of Fox News. However, Fox News never published this story: Reducing Electricity Bills by 90%! Elon Musk's Revolutionary Device Designed Personally for Middle-aged, Elderly, and Low-income Groups Faces Suppression by Power Giants, Facing Production Crisis? Elon Musk, the genius CEO behind solar power giant Tesla has been the talk of the town lately. His most recent controversy is a genius electricity saving invention for those who can't afford fancy, expensive solar panels. The electric power companies are furious and want Elon's money saving invention banned before the American public can take full advantage of the savings. He goes on to say "The big power companies are scamming you. Yes, that's right. Believe it or not, they have been using a secret to cheat you every time you run your lights, dishwasher, blender, vacuum and anything else that draws power. This is why your power bill is so expensive every month and keeps rising with some residents paying as much as $500 a month in electric bills. Every American can slash their electricity bill by 90% using this revolutionary technology. You're welcome, America." This scam often features a picture of Musk holding one of the supposed "electricity-saving box" devices in his hand:  However, as readers can see at the top of this article, the photograph with Musk holding the device had been doctored. The original picture was available on the Getty Images website. available Continuing with the scam article, it went on to tell a sad story of a woman named "Dorothy Smith," purportedly a Tesla employee, who died of heat stroke in her home. According to the story, her death inspired Musk to create StopWatt: But for Elon Musk, this was more than just an invention to fight back against the greedy electric companies. When tragedy struck the Tesla factory, he knew he had to take action. Dorothy Smith was a 64 year old Tesla employee who died of a heat stroke after falling behind on her electric bills and her service was shut off in the middle of a record breaking heat wave. Her youngest daughter came to check up on her after many unanswered phone calls and tragically found Dorothy lifeless on the couch with her husband. ... Seeing just how devastating electricity prices are on the average American's wallet, and witnessing his own employee, Dorothy Smith pass away tragically, Elon Musk set out to find his old drawing plans for an electricity saver invention he had made as a young genius in South Africa. The original drawing was based on a concept by his idol, legendary inventor, electrical and mechanical engineer and visionary, Nikola Tesla. After a few hours of digging through old papers, he found it! Elon immediately called one of his brightest engineers at Tesla and trusted friend, Ed Sherwood. Combining their expertise, they set out to bring Elon's electricity saving dream to life. As we previously reported, none of this was true. Articles that claim Musk and Tesla created StopWatt are both fiction and scams. Further, there's no record of a Tesla employee named "Dorothy Smith" having died of heat stroke. "Elon Musk." Tesla.com, https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk. Liles, Jordan. "Was Pro Power Saver Endorsed by Elon Musk and Tesla?" Snopes, 23 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pro-power-saver-elon-musk/. Dec. 6, 2023: This report was updated to add the name of U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, whose image and likeness were being improperly used by scammers alongside Musk's in December 2023. On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money. Stock Learning Group 28  The full scam post that promised a way to "buy SpaceX stock before it goes public" read as follows: Bullish on the future of space travel? See how to invest in SpaceX before it goes Public! We help you pre-buy stocks in the latest up-and-coming companies, before most retail investors. Getting in on the best companies before they go public is how you can get the returns like recent IPOs such as: AirBnB - 130% return in 7 months.Palantir - 226% return in 10 months.Snowflake - 331% return in 10 months. We do one thing very well... ...get you access to the most popular companies before the public market has a chance. Click the Learn More button now and well show you how to invest in SpaceX before the public  This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust. crypto scams featured photos of Musk The Facebook account that hosted the ads showed up as a personal profile and not a page. It was named Tut Pro 1 38801324. The profile picture showed an image that said "Half Price Books," a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam. We asked the account about the strange profile photo. They responded, "This event is sponsored by Mr. Nino, a senior stock analyst. Join Mr. Nino's stock research group now and receive a stock book when you join the group." The crypto scams we covered in the past also claimed to feature a specialist who could help deliver on the scam's promise. In the crypto scams, the scammers called this person "the teacher." We asked the user if this "Mr. Nino" was "the teacher." The account responded, "Yes." If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia. TinEye.com reverse image search As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later. reported Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.com, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Sheetz, Michael. Elon Musk Says an IPO of SpaceXs Starlink Satellite Internet Business Is Still 3 or 4 Years Away. CNBC, 7 June 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/spacex-starlink-ipo-elon-musk-says-offering-is-3-or-4-years-away.html. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. Tut Pro 1 38801324. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100084130714561. On Oct. 18, 2022, we added a note that said a real company named Half Price Books had nothing to do with the scam. A four-line poem, also known as a quatrain, allegedly written by 16th-century philosopher Michel de Nostradamus described predictions of a future plague that would fall upon the world. (Some assumed that this so-called plague referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Snopes has previously debunked here.) here The alleged quatrain went on to describe a feeble man who was set to rule the western world with a jezebel after the plague. According to Snopes readers, renditions of this poem appeared to suggest that this man and jezebel either referred to U.S. President Donald Trump or President-elect Joe Biden, depending on the person sharing the poem. In the end, this fool ruler will cause the great eagle  presumably the United States  to suffer and fall. The below meme circulated in early 2021:   It is unclear where this quatrain originated from or who the original poster was. Nostradamus, who was also a French physician, first published Les Prophties in 1555. It is thought that his collection of poems, which are compiled in 10 sets of verses of 100 quatrains each, contain mythological and astrological predictions for the future world. In the centuries that followed his original publication, he has remained prominent in modern popular culture, often among internet users who share fabricated predictions falsely attributed to him. Les Prophties remained prominent Nostradamus is credited with accurately predicting many historical events, according to Rare Books Digest. And though many of his poems are largely vague and could apply to a number of events, some of his predictions do come eerily close to actual events. Rare Books Digest eerily close But the meme in question does not appear to make that list. A look through The Compleat Works of Nostradamus did not reveal any mention of a jezebel or a feeble man. And though the word plague was mentioned more than 30 times in the Nostradamus text, there is no instance where it occurs alongside the same wording as in the meme. look The Compleat Works of Nostradamus reveal Furthermore, it is also important to note that the quatrains written by Nostradamus do not follow chronological order. So, while they may be broken down into what the author considered to be centuries, these do not directly translate to the century in which any prediction was anticipated to occur. Claim:  Maps show similarity between 2004 U.S. presidential election results and pattern of free vs. slave states in pre-Civil War America.   Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004]  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results Pre-Civil War Free vs. Slave States  Origins:  This is another example for which it is difficult to assign a value of "" or ""  there is a basic (and somewhat superficial) underlying fact which is true, but interpretations of that fact's significance are subjective and can be widely varied. It is true that a map showing the locations of free and slave states (and territories) in the pre-Civil War U.S. bears a rough resemblance to a map showing the electoral vote results for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Senator John Kerry won most of the states in the northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific coast regions, while President George W. Bush captured all of the south plus most of the midwestern, western, and plains states.  However, the similarities between these maps mask some very significant differences. On the eve of the Civil War (which began in April 1861), the United States was very sharply divided along regional lines.  Going into the 1860 campaign, the two major parties both essentially  split in two, each creating a northern and a southern wing.  In the subsequent presidential election the northern Whig/Republican party (represented by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois) didn't even appear on the ballot in most southern states, and while the Southern Democratic party (represented by John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky) did make the ballot throughout most of the north, they rarely drew more than a relative handful of votes in those states.  All four candidates captured at least one state's electoral votes, a rarity in U.S. election history. election captured The electorate in 2004 was not nearly so sharply divided along regional lines, however  an electoral map just makes it appear that way because of the "winner take all" nature of the U.S. electoral system.  Both the popular and electoral vote totals in 2004 were quite close (President Bush won the popular vote by a 51%-48% margin, and a single strongly-contested state such as Ohio could have tipped the electoral vote balance in the other direction), and although the states won by each candidate were largely clumped into regional clusters, both candidates generally ran very strongly even in the states they did not win.  An election map with finer gradation (i.e., displaying results on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state one, and providing color shading to reflect the closeness of the vote in each area) produces a better picture of how strongly both candidates in the 2004 election ran even in states which they lost: 2004  (Click here for a larger version of this map.) here According to exit polls and analysis of county-by-county election returns, the sharpest geographic distinction between the two candidates did not primarily correspond to region but to size of community: Senator John Kerry had a substantial 60%-39% edge in large cities (representing roughly 13% of the total U.S. population), while the reverse was true in rural areas (representing roughly 16% of the total U.S. population), where President Bush garnered a 59%-40% majority.  What we saw in the 2004 election was more of an urban vs. rural division, regardless of state. exit polls Last updated:  11 November 2004    Sources:   Alexander, Kate.  "Election Officials Urge Voters to Check Ballots for Errors."   Austin American-Statesman.  23 October 2004  (p. B1). Dennis Kucinich became a lame-duck member of Congress after the 10th District he has represented since 1997 was redrawn out of existence and he lost a primary contest to another sitting Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, in the new Ohio 9th District.But Kucinich has not stopped working on the issues that have engaged him.He issued a news release and video on Nov. 2 supporting HR 4310, the bill he introduced to end the childhood obesity subsidy.Congress -- with your tax dollars -- subsidizes the marketing efforts of fast food and junk food companies by as much as $19 billion over 10 years, thereby subsidizing the childhood obesity epidemic, he said.Do fast food and junk food companies really enjoy an advertising subsidy? PolitiFact Ohio decided to dig in.Kucinich builds his case first by noting that childhood obesity -- which has more than tripled in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- has been linked to the influence of targeted marketing, though partial blame does lie with a more sedentary lifestyle and a worsening diet.He cites several prominent studies in support, with the most recent study coming from the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It says: Aggressive marketing of high-calorie foods to children and adolescents has been identified as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity. (Others with the same conclusion included the American Heart Association, the American Journal of Public Health and the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.) Kucinich's bill would prohibit any company from claiming a tax deduction for the expense of marketing that is directed at children to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality.Under current law, fast food marketers get the same break that other businesses do. The federal tax code allows companies to deduct reasonable and necessary expenses of marketing and advertising from their income taxes.How is that a subsidy?The way the federal funding system works, Kucinich said, is that if we give a tax break in one place, we need to replace that lost income from somewhere else, like with higher taxes from the rest of us. In other words, this tax break is a massive subsidy for the junk food and fast food industry.The question then is how much the deduction, or tax break, is worth.According to a report to Congress from the Federal Trade Commission, the most recent we could find, the fast food industry spent nearly $2 billion in 2006 on marketing and advertising specifically aimed at children. That would yield about $700 million in tax revenue at the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent.A report in the New England Journal of Medicine put the marketing budgets for kids' foods at $10 billion annually -- which would yield $3.5 billion in revenue.A study in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity said it It is unclear how much money is spent on food advertising specifically directed at children and adolescents, but put the total for advertising, youth-targeted promotions and public relations and packaging especially designed for children at $10.5 billion.The Economic Policy Institute estimated 10-year tax savings of $15 billion through legislation to end subsidies for junk and fast food advertising to children to promote health.Kucinich relied on Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimated on a very preliminary basis that his legislation could raise $15 billion to $19 billion in additional federal revenue over the 10-year budget period.That is as much as $19 billion, as Kucinich asserted, though the committee also noted that unsettled issues surrounding his bill would affect its impact and the revenue it would raise. Those issues primarily include defining fast food and determining what advertising is primarily directed at children.What's our take-home?PolitiFact examined Kucinich's legislation two years ago, when he made a statement about it that we found relied too firmly on a high-end estimate of its potential tax saving and implied a direct cash payout by taxpayers to the food industry. He chose his words more carefully this time.His assertion that the tax code provides a subsidy of as much as $19 billion needs additional information for clarification, but it is well supported.On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True. In mid-March 2020, the coffee brand Starbucks announced it would open a bean roasting facility in China, which prompted a spate of memes aimed at a U.S. audience about "creating jobs for China." announced   It's true that Starbucks is investing $130 million to open a coffee bean roasting plant in China, per a company announcement dated March 12, 2020. This will be an expansion of Starbucks' already-existing presence in China, where the chain has been doing business since 1999. Starbucks already has 4,200 stores in 177 cities in mainland China, with a total of 57,000 employees. announcement already has So, while the expansion will indeed create more jobs in China, it's not as if the company is shipping American jobs overseas. Instead, the new roasting facility is geared toward making beans for coffee drinkers purchasing the beverage locally in Asia. The announcement from Starbucks reads: Starbucks Coffee Company, the global roaster and retailer of specialty coffee, announced today it will invest approximately $130 million (USD) in China to open a state-of-the-art roasting facility in 2022 as part of its new Coffee Innovation Park (CIP). As Starbucks largest manufacturing investment outside of the U.S. and its first in Asia, the CIP will incorporate a roasting plant, warehouse and distribution center, creating highly-skilled jobs and new career opportunities that will further drive smart and sustainable coffee manufacturing in China. The plant will serve as a key component of the Companys global roasting network, and the bold infrastructure investment further deepens Starbucks multi-decade commitment to strengthen the specialty coffee industry in China, where it aims to have 6,000 stores by 2022. China Daily, an English-language, government-run newspaper, reported that the Coffee Innovation Park is slated to be built in Kunshan, a city in China's eastern Jiangsu province. reported Starbucks."Starbucks Coffee Innovation Park in China Elevates Manufacturing and Extends Global Roasting Network."
12 March 2020. China Daily."Starbucks to Build Up Roasting Capacity in China."
13 March 2020. Bajpai, Prableen."How Starbucks (SBUX) Is Getting Itself Back On Track In China In Wake of COVID-19."
Nasdaq.com.25 March 2020. One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. In early 2022, the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, many were debating the effects of masks and lockdowns on early childhood development.  Internet rumors abounded, including one claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually lowered the standard milestones for measuring childhood development largely because of the allegedly deleterious effects of pandemic safety measures, particularly wearing masks.  standard milestones for measuring childhood development One post claimed: The CDC just quietly lowered the standards for speech in early childhood development. Now children should know [about] 50 words at 30 [months] rather than 24 [months]. Instead of highlighting the harmful effects masks and lockdowns have had on children, the CDC just lowered the bar for milestones.     In February 2022, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did release a statement describing updates to their developmental milestone checklists. The updates included Adding checklists for ages 15 and 30 months; now there is a checklist for every well-child visit from 2 months to 5 years. February 2022, Before this, in addition to checklists for older age groups, there was already a checklist for children 2 years old (24 months). That checklist is on the CDC's website. The checklist for 24-month-olds never stipulated the number of words a child should be able to speak at that age, only that a 2-year-old says sentences with 2 to 4 words. (See archived versions of that same checklist from 2020 and 2017, for example.)  checklist 2020 2017 The CDC specified the following in its Language/Communication Milestones for a 30-month-old child: following Says about 50 wordsSays two or more words, with one action word, like Doggie runNames things in a book when you point and ask, What is this?Says words like I, me, or we The point about knowing 50 words was new (for any age group), and had not been part of the 2-year milestones on the CDC website prior to this addition. According to Dr. Paul H. Lipkin who assisted with the revisions, the goal of the checklist was to identify developmental delays early. The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin, he said. At the same time, we dont want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals. Review of a childs development with these milestones also opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their childs present and future development. Dr. Paul H. Lipkin said It should be noted that according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a child saying fewer than 50 words at 2 years old is a sign of a language disorder. ASHA released a statement about the updated milestones, expressing concern: according statement ASHA has reached out to CDC, expressing its concern about inconsistencies and urging the agency to utilize the expertise of SLPs when making changes to developmental milestones in speech, language, feeding, and social communication. In general, ASHA is supportive of efforts to help identify children earlier, but the milestones presented to parents must be evidence-based in order for families to make well-informed decisions about their children's care. That said, the CDCs milestone revisions were already in development before the pandemic began, with a broad literature search underway in 2019. According to a research article detailing the process and philosophy behind the revisions, the new milestones aim to capture the 75th percentile, or what 3/4 of children are expected to achieve at a particular age, instead of the previously used 50th percentile, which was found to be less helpful for families and clinicians.  2019 research article The CDCs milestones are intended to help parents identify autism and developmental delays in their children, and not act as a screening tool for medical professionals. "The revised developmental milestones are written in family-friendly language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children can be expected to exhibit at a certain age based on data, developmental resources and clinician experience," their news release stated.   intended stated As of this writing, no evidence has emerged that shows masking negatively affects childhood development, so the claim that the CDC intentionally obscured masking harm is incorrect. The AAP website states: AAP website A key part of learning to communicate for a child is watching the faces, mouths, and expressions of the people closest to them. Babies and young children study faces intently, so the concern about solid masks covering the face is understandable. However, there are no known studies that use of a face mask negatively impacts a child's speech and language development. And consider this: visually impaired children develop speech and language skills at the same rate as their peers. In fact, when one sense is taken away, the others may be heightened. Young children will use other clues provided to them to understand and learn language. They will watch gestures, hear changes in tone of voice, see eyes convey emotions, and listen to words. A 2021 University of Miami study also found, Wearing a mask in school does not hinder a young childs ability to learn language, even if they have hearing loss.  University of Miami study Meanwhile, studies of the effects of a range of pandemic lockdowns on childhood development have shown mixed results. A study conducted by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) in the U.K. showed that the pandemic had a significant adverse impact on mostly vulnerable, low-income older children, and those who were from minority ethnic backgrounds. But the study emphasized that more research was needed on the effects of the pandemic on childhood development for children aged 05 years.  study A number of studies by an international consortium of researchers from 13 countries, including from the University of Oslo, the University of Gttingen, and University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, looked at the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on early development. Shortly after isolation began in March 2020, parents were asked to fill out questionnaires, and then contacted at the end of the lockdown. The studies found that "despite having increased exposure to screen time during lockdown, children learned more words during the lockdown period in March 2020, relative to before the pandemic. This is potentially due to other activities that parents undertook with their children during lockdown."  studies Another report on behalf of the International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) included studies conducted across 22 countries, and a wide age range (0-18 years) and concluded that "pandemic school closure and lockdown have adverse effects on child health and well-being in the short and probably long term."  report A January 2022 report in Nature detailed how varied the data could be: report Some babies born during the past two years might be experiencing developmental delays, whereas others might have thrived, if carers were at home for extended periods and there were more opportunities for siblings to interact. As with many aspects of health during the pandemic, social and economic disparities have a clear role in who is affected the most. Early data suggest that the use of masks has not negatively affected childrens emotional development. But prenatal stress might contribute to some changes in brain connectivity. The picture is evolving and many studies have not yet been peer reviewed. And one particular study by Brown Universitys Advanced Baby Imaging Lab found that the pandemic-born babies they tested scored lower during early learning tests including for language, puzzle-solving, and motor skills. But other researchers argued that these tests were not necessarily indicative of longer term problems, and the findings are currently under revision.  study While the CDC did update its checklist to include development milestones for 30-month-old children, those changes were already in process before the pandemic began. The 50-word expectation was new and did not exist in older versions of the milestones. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that masks cause developmental delays in children, and the evidence regarding the effects of lockdowns on childhood development has been mixed, so it's illogical to claim that the CDC obscured such information or revised the milestones due to the effects of masking and lockdowns. Given all of the above, we rate this claim as false. ASHA Statement on CDCs Updated Developmental Milestones. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/about/statements/ASHA-Statement-on-CDC-Developmental-Milestones/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. "Do Masks Delay Speech and Language Development?" HealthyChildren.Org. https://perma.cc/CS22-HG2P. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Early Identification of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/public/early-identification-of-speech-language-and-hearing-disorders/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Growing up in Lockdown: The Impacts of Pandemic Life on Childrens Early Physical Development. Early Intervention Foundation, 26 Nov. 2021, https://www.eif.org.uk/blog/growing-up-in-lockdown-the-impacts-of-pandemic-life-on-childrens-early-physical-development. Accessed 4 March 2022.  "Psychologists: Masks Do Not Impede Preschoolers Language Development." University of Miami, 13 Sept. 2022. https://perma.cc/AY3A-EBR2. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Rajmil, Louis, and Anders Hjern, Perran Boran, and on behalf of International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) and International Network for Research on Inequalities in Child Health (INRICH) COVID-19 Working Group, et al. "Impact of lockdown and school closure on childrens health and well-being during the first wave of COVID-19: a narrative review." BMJ Paediatrics Open, 2021. https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/5/1/e001043. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Schering, Steve. "CDC, AAP Update Developmental Milestones for Surveillance Program." Feb. 2022. publications.aap.org, https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19554/CDC-AAP-update-developmental-milestones-for. Accessed 4 March 2022.  University of Gttingen. "Impact of COVID-19 social isolation measures on early development: Researchers investigate impact of lockdown measures on 8- to 36-month-old infants across 13 countries." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 February 2022. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207083421.htm>. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Wenner Moyer, Melinda. The COVID Generation: How Is the Pandemic Affecting Kids Brains? Nature, vol. 601, no. 7892, Jan. 2022, pp. 18083. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00027-4. Accessed 4 March 2022.  What Developmental Milestones Is Your 30-Month-Old Reaching? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-30mo.html. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Your Child at 2 Years. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/checklists/checklists_2yr.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Zubler, Jennifer M. and Lisa D. Wiggins, Michelle M. Macias, Toni M. Whitaker, Judith S. Shaw, Jane K. Squires, Julie A. Pajek, Rebecca B. Wolf, Karnesha S. Slaughter, Amber S. Broughton, Krysta L. Gerndt, Bethany J. Mlodoch, Paul H. Lipkin. "Evidence-Informed Milestones for Developmental Surveillance Tools." Pediatrics March 2022; 149 (3): e2021052138. 10.1542/peds.2021-052138. Accessed on 3 March 2022. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title.