Will the name of Trump be displayed on COVID-19 stimulus checks?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020.
In September 2019, we received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely-shared tweet claming that the United States had been ranked the "118th safest country in the world" in 2019, a decline of 53 places in just one year. The claims originated with a September 3 tweet by @ResisterSiano, a left-leaning, anti-Trump Twitter account, which said: "The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. [I don't know] how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole." The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. Idk how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole.  Sergio (@ResisterSiano) September 3, 2019 September 3, 2019  Those claims were further promulgated when a Facebook user posted a screenshot of the tweet, garnering thousands of shares within a week:  The claims constituted a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the findings of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an Australia-based non-profit organization, in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis firm associated with the Economist magazine. The originator of the tweet confirmed they had based their claims on the 2019 GPI in another tweet in which they wrote that "the United States ranked 118th in safety in 2019" and included a link to a summary of the report on the website World Population Review. tweet summary The GPI tracks the overall "absence of violence or fear of violence" in more than 160 independent countries and territories around the world. The overall GPI score is based on 23 separate indicators which, taken together, describe the presence and impact of internal and external conflicts, the impacts of violent crime and instability (including homicide rates, terrorism, the proportion of refugees and internally displaced people within a given population, and so on), as well as the levels of militarization and the availability and prevalence of weapons within a country or territory, among several other factors. The full list of 23 indicators can be viewed below, and a more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the 2019 GPI (starting on page 84): page 84   The GPI is not simply a measure of "safety" within a country, and it cannot be claimed, in a straightforward or reliable way, that a country which ranks 100th, for example, in the GPI is therefore "the 100th safest country in the world." It is probably more apt (though still imprecise) to describe the index as a rough approximation of each country or territory's overall peacefulness, a term which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also factors such as militarization and the presence, impact, and intensity of national and international conflicts. Notwithstanding these important distinctions, safety and security do form an important component of the GPI, and "Societal Safety and Security" is one of the index's three main strands, along with "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict" and "Militarization." "Societal Safety and Security" does include some indicators which a reader might typically associate with "safety," such as the level of violent crime, the impact of terrorism, and the homicide rate, but it also takes into account several factors which a reader would not typically associate with "safety," such as political instability and the ratio of police to population. Conversely, "ease of access to small arms and light weapons" -- a factor which many observers in the U.S., in particular, might associate with public safety -- is included in the "Militarization" strand, and not "Societal Safety and Security." More broadly, the overall GPI score takes into account several other factors which a reader would not typically consider when making a straightforward assessment of the "safety" of a given country, such as: a country's financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; the prevalence of refugees and internally displaced persons within the population; military spending as a percentage of GDP, and others. Bearing in mind the aforementioned nuances and complexities inherent in the GPI and its methodology, the following is a breakdown of the United States' rankings (both overall and for each of the three strands), from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Rankings in Global Peace Index, 2015-2019(Out of 163 countries/territories, unless otherwise stated.) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019  Even if we set aside for a moment the inherent nuances in the GPI and the indicators of which it consists, those rankings lay bare several factual inaccuracies contained within the tweet. First, the U.S. did not rank 118th in the 2019 GPI, by any measure, and it's not clear what the basis was for citing that number. The United States' overall ranking was 128th, and when it came to "Societal Safety and Security" -- the strand which arguably represents "safety" most closely -- the U.S. ranked considerably better, at 59th out of 163 countries. On "Societal Safety and Security," therefore, only around 36 percent of countries performed better than the United States, which somewhat undermines the claim that "the overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the U.S." Furthermore, no justification exists for the claim that the U.S. "fell 53 places in one year," although the U.S. did rank lower by every measure in 2019 than the year before, and 2018 represented a decline in rankings by every measure from the year before that. The actual decline in U.S. rankings between 2018 and 2019 was: seven places in the overall rankings; two places under "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict"; 12 places under "Societal Safety and Security," and one place under "Militarization." Notwithstanding these factual inaccuracies, and the over-simplistic invocation of the concept of "safety," there is a justification for saying that based on the many and varied factors that go into the GPI, the United States was ranked the 128th most peaceful country in the world in 2019, an even lower ranking than 118th. That is to say, the United States could reasonably be described as being in the bottom 23 percent of the world's nations when it comes to overall peacefulness (which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also international conflict and militarization). That ranking placed the U.S. below Central American nations such as Honduras (123rd), Nicaragua (120th), Guatemala (114th) and El Salvador (112th), as well as the African nations of Niger (126th), the Republic of the Congo (121st), and Kenya (120th), and historical rivals such as China (110th) and Cuba (91st). The U.S. ranked significantly below many of its European and NATO allies, such as the U.K. (joint 45th), Germany (22nd), and Canada (6th), but notably did outrank Russia, which was placed at 154th out of 163 countries and territories. Despite a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the GPI, the index's actual findings would no doubt be just as worrying to many Americans. WorldPopulationReview.com.  "Safest Countries in the World 2019."
  28 August 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit.  "Global Peace Index 2019."
  12 June 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2018."
  June 2018. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2017."
  1 June 2017. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2016."
  June 2016. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2015."
  June 2015. Claim:  President Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase  the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed. It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! Origins:  The availability of health care and the associated costs of medical care, prescription drugs, and insurance are a major issue in every campaign, especially among older voters.  With premiums for the government-funded Medicare program scheduled to rise from $66.60 to $78.20 per month in January 2005 (a 17.4% increase over current levels, and 56 percent higher than the premiums charged in 2001), both sides in the upcoming presidential election are seeking the upper hand on the issue. Medicare Democrats have maintained that the Bush administration bears much of the responsibility for the increase in premiums because it has done little to control health costs and had directed too much Medicare money to the managed health care industry, and Democratic nominee John Kerry's campaign aired a commercial that (incorrectly) implied that President Bush  was responsible for the increase in Medicare premiums ("George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history . . .").  President Bush's campaign countered by running a TV spot that (incorrectly) stated Senator Kerry had "voted five times to raise Medicare premiums": Republicans had hoped to emphasize their support of Medicare in this campaign season, after making herculean efforts to pass legislation adding drug benefits to the health program for 41 million people who are elderly or disabled. But the new law, signed by Bush in December, has met mixed reviews. The drug benefits, representing the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, do not become available until 2006, and the increase in premiums has nothing to do with the new drug coverage. Beneficiaries will have to pay an additional premium, expected to average $35 a month in 2006, for drug benefits. The Bush campaign advertisement, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," says, "It was Mr. Kerry who voted five times to raise Medicare premiums." The votes, from 1985 to 1997, were not on premiums alone, but on comprehensive budget bills that included hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare and scores of other federal programs. Like most political issues, health care is a complex subject that has been shaped and affected by many different pieces of legislation, and no one person or political party is solely responsible for the rise in Medicare premiums.  Those interested in trying to follow the bouncing ball and track the origins of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums may find this article helpful. article Last updated:  12 October 2004    Sources:    Pear, Robert and Carl Hulse.  "Medicare Costs Are New Focus for Candidates."   The New York Times.  12 September 2004  (p. 1).     The [Pottstown] Mercury.  "Health Care a Passionate Issue for Candidates."   1 October 2004. On 18 September 2016, Facebook user Rosemary Thomas shared a four-panel image of what she claimed was a breaded and deep-fried rat served to her at a Harlem-area Popeyes Chicken: shared claimed Friends and family, this is a meal Popeyes in Harlem served my daughter, my niece and sister. This is clearly a rat and they have the nerve to have a 5 rating by the department of health. I've sent this picture to DESK@NY1 and no one has contacted me. People please free to share this picture. Think about all the other rat that have been served and the lasting effect this will have on my daughter, niece and sister. The exact address is 2730 Frederick Douglas Blvd.  The claim was shared over a hundred thousand times, and social media users flooded Popeyes Chicken's Facebook page to express their disgust about the images. Some social media users perhaps recognized Thomas' claim as an iteration of a very old urban legend known as the "Kentucky Fried Rat": Facebook Kentucky Fried Rat The "Kentucky Fried Rat" tale is one of the hoariest of food contamination urban legends, and some elements of its spread are easy to explain. Within the context of fast food restaurants, the offending eatery has to be a fried chicken outlet in order for the rat to be suitably disguised as a piece of food. Once the restaurant is established as one that serves fast-food chicken, it becomes Kentucky Fried Chicken because, as folklorist Gary Alan Fine writes, "The frequency of attachment of an urban legend to the largest company or corporation is so common as to be considered a law of urban folklore." (These days, however, many KFC outlets receive their chicken pieces pre-battered, and thus one of them could not "accidentally" batter and fry a rat.) The choice of a rat as a contaminant is also easy: rats have turned up in food products before; they're the right size and shape to be mistaken for pieces of chicken (especially when fried in batter); and rats are vermin, symbols of filth and decay. The fact that the rat-chicken is usually eaten in the dark is a plot device to prevent premature discovery of the "secret," although some might consider it an important symbolic aspect of the legend. So, what does this legend have to say? As our society becomes more urbanized (and frenetic), we become less and less involved with the preparation of our own food, frequently dining out instead of eating at home, scarfing a quick meal rather than enjoying a leisurely one, and leaving the food preparation entirely in the hands of others. And these others are not local restaurateurs we know well, but anonymous corporate fast food franchisees and their faceless employees. The combination of our guilt at abdicating this responsibility and our mistrust of corporations is expressed as fear that fast food entities who don't care about us will serve us tainted food prepared under unsanitary conditions, due to carelessness, laziness, or sheer malice. Like many other long-circulating urban legends, iterations (and parodies) of the deep-fried rat (or mouse) claim pop up from time to time on social media as first-person accounts. Typically, those claims are determined to be misunderstandings or fraudulent attempts to extort money from large companies. iterations parodies misunderstandings We contacted Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, and spokeswoman Renee Kopkowski told us the customer originally arranged to meet with someone from Popeyes on 19 September 2016 to supply a sample of the item in question for testing but then postponed the meeting, so the company has not yet been able to submit the sample to third-party examination. Kopkowski also stated that Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen conferred with suppliers who suggested the depicted material was actually organ meat, and she added that New York City's Health Department subsequently performed a thorough investigation of the Harlem location and found no evidence of the presence of vermin (i.e., rats): A guest at a Popeyes in Harlem in New York City recently posted on her social media account saying she thought she found something unusual in her chicken. Everyone at Popeyes takes claims like this very seriously.  Food quality is our top priority. When the franchise owner of this restaurant learned of the guests post, he immediately tried contacting her to resolve the issue.  The pictures she posted were also sent to the poultry supplier and the owner contacted the health department to inspect his restaurant that day.   The health department re-confirmed the locations A rating.  Its important to understand Popeyes uses fresh poultry.  Its rare, but there are instances when chicken organs fail to be removed from the final product.  While they may look unpleasant, or sometimes look like non-chicken parts, they do not pose a health risk. The franchisee has requested that the guest in New York and the attorney she is working with turn over the product to have the product tested by an independent third party. Until that testing takes place, we cant confirm her claim is valid In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a "slush fund" to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a "slush fund" which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees. Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports  for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97. here   Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch). viewed here Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type: compilation A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC. The meme is false  the money isn't paid from an illegal "slush fund." It's unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators -- at the expense of taxpayers. This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC's process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works "is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.") As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a "cooling off" period. According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements. Me Too some men Schor, Elana."Congress Sexual Harassment System, Decoded."
Politico.21 November 2017. Hartmann, Margaret."Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual-Harassment Complaint Using Taxpayer Money: Report."
New York Magazine.21 November 2017. Lee, MJ, et al."Congress Paid Out $17 Million in Settlements. Here's Why We Know So Little About That Money."
CNN.16 November 2017. Bennett, Jessica."The #MeToo Moment."
The New York Times.30 November 2017. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated:  2 July 2008 Officials in Jefferson County, Georgia, faced allegations of racially-motivated voter suppression in October 2018 in response to an incident in which a voter registration group was ordered to return a group of African-American seniors to a county-run senior center, after those seniors boarded a bus to cast ballots during early voting for the November elections. The liberal web site ThinkProgress reported of the incident that: reported Seniors in rural Georgia were dancing in the street, preparing to board Black Voters Matters bus to cast their ballots Monday, the first day of the states early voting period. But the county administrator ordered the senior center to take the 40 or so elderly African Americans off the bus  an act organizers described as live voter suppression. In a Facebook video about the incident, which took place on 15 October, the group's co-founders LaTosha Brown and Cliff Albright characterized the county's decision as racially-motivated voter suppression, with Albright saying: Somebody called the County Commission to complain because they saw all these black folks get on this big black bus -- it's the blackest bus in America -- somebody drove past, saw that, got nervous, got mad, called the County Commission's office, which then called the center. And the bottom line was, all the folks who had just got on the bus -- and the bus was full, this is a 50-passenger bus full of folks -- had to come off the bus. There's not a candidate on this bus, there's not a party symbol on this bus, but I'm going to tell you what is on this bus -- a whole bunch of black fists in the air with the word "power" underneath it. That's what scared them and made them say "Those folks have to come off that bus." However, Jefferson County administrator Adam Brett insisted that the event constituted "political activity," something that the county purportedly does not allow on county property or at county-sponsored events. Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans was on the bus in question and helped organize the visit to the senior center in the first place, as revealed in email correspondence published by Augusta television station WJBF. WJBF Furthermore, Brett said he had not "vetted" Black Voters Matter, and that allowing the senior citizens to leave with an unfamiliar outside group could have been a "liability" for the county, which operates the senior center in Louisville and also organizes its own chartered buses for seniors to get to polling stations. said In a statement sent to us, Brett wrote: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has a practice of not allowing political activities during normal business hours on County property or at County sponsored activities. On October 15th, the Senior Center staff declined to allow a third party and unknown bus operator to pick County residents on County property for political purposes. The Senior Center staff routinely arrange Jefferson County Public Transit to transport senior citizens to vote. In an email, Albright rejected Brett's "liability" argument, calling it "paternalistic" and pointing out that the Louisville senior center is an activities center, not a residential center: Seniors can come [and] go when they please and with whomever they choose to leave with. If they want to leave with a family member, an Uber driver, or an organization they trust, that is their own choice. These are grown adults who decided who they wanted to leave with, and despite Mr. Bretts paternalistic need to feel comfortable with that decision, he has no control over those choices, nor liability [for them]. We asked Brett what the legal basis was for his order (carried out by staff at the senior center) not to "allow" the seniors to travel to the polling station with Black Voters Matter and requested that he clarify Jefferson County's legal authority and liabilities relating to people who use the senior center. We did not receive a response to those questions. Albright told us that staff at the senior center had given advance permission for Black Voters Matter to visit the center and hold an event there, but not for them to escort seniors to polling stations. However, he maintained this was because the group had not initially planned to take the bus trip, which he said the seniors themselves had asked for, spontaneously: The seniors requested to ride the bus to go vote after they saw it and were excited. The center director approved/supported the request, which is why the seniors even got on the bus. It was not until the county administrator called the center director that it became a problem. Albright also questioned the sincerity of Brett's invocation of county policy on "political activities," pointing out that Jody Hice, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is scheduled to host an event at the senior center on 27 October. (Albright emphasized that he thought the event in question was very worthy and should be allowed to take place at the center, but he saw it as an example of a double standard.) scheduled In fact, on the same day that the seniors were prevented from travelling with Black Voters Matter to a polling station, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners actually promoted Congressman Hice's event at the senior center on their Facebook page, in a post that was taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release: press release   We asked Brett to explain why the county had forbidden an event in which a bus carrying a local Democratic party official -- but no elected politician or candidate -- was to escort seniors to a polling station away from the center itself, but allowed a sitting Republican Congressman, who is actively campaigning for re-election, to host an event in the center itself. We also asked why the Board of Commissioners had promoted that event. We did not receive a response to those questions. re-election In a separate Facebook post, the Board of Commissioners explained that the bus trip had been forbidden because it "was led by the President of the Jefferson County Democratic Party [Diane Evans] and as such was considered a political event." However, the Black Voters Matter's visit had been organized with the assistance of Evans, and yet it was still allowed to take place. post We asked Brett why the Black Voters Matter visit was allowed to go ahead despite the involvement of Evans, but the bus trip was not, and asked whether he had considered requesting that Evans disembark the bus (given that her involvement was purportedly the source of the county's objections) rather than ordering the seniors to return to the center. Again, we did not receive a response to these questions. Conclusion It is true that on 15 October 2018, staff at the Jefferson County senior center in Louisville enacted the instructions of County Administrator Adam Brett by insisting that a group of seniors return to the center after they voluntarily boarded a bus operated on behalf of Black Voters Matter, a voter registration group. The leaders of that group characterized the incident as racially-motivated voter suppression, but Brett insisted otherwise, stating that the reasons for his order were twofold: the involvement of Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans meant that the bus trip constituted "political activity," something the county could not allow, and county officials had not vetted Black Voters Matter or the bus operator, creating a potential liability for the county which Brett was unwilling to assume. However, it must be acknowledged that significant problems exist with the coherence of the twofold rationale outlined by Brett. First, it is not clear that Jefferson County actually has any legal liability for anything that happens to those who use the center once they have left the center. Likewise, it's not clear that Brett had any legal authority to "not allow" seniors to travel to the polling station or Black Voters Matter to escort them there. Second, the consistency with which Jefferson County enforces their prohibition on "political activities" at the senior center is questionable. On the one hand, Brett forbade the bus trip to the polling station on this basis due to the involvement of a local Democratic official, even though the bus trip would have taken the seniors away from the senior center, and even though the county allowed a visit to the senior center which had been organized with the help of that same Democratic official. But Jefferson County's Board of Commissioners also sanctioned a forthcoming event to be hosted by Jody Hice, a sitting Republican Congressman and active election candidate, which is scheduled to take place in the center itself, and the Board of Commissioners has promoted that event on Facebook in a post taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release. Lerner, Kira.& nbsp; "'This Is Live Voter Suppression': Black Voters Matter Blocked grom Taking Seniors to Vote."
  ThinkProgress.  15 October 2018. DuBose, Renetta.  "Jefferson County: 'It Was Miscommunication, Not Voter Suppression.'"
  WJBF-TV.  17 October 2018. Hice, Jody.  "Press Release -- Hice to Host Helping Our Heroes Veterans' Event."
  U.S. Representative Jody Hice.  10 October 2018. The New York Times.  "Georgia Primary Election Results: 10th House District."
  29 May 2018. Correction [22 October 2018]: In some instances, this article previously referred to the Chairperson of the Jefferson County Democrats as Diane Davis. She is Diane Evans. On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was brutally murdered by Jonathan (Jon) Venables (10) and Robert (Bobbie) Thompson (10) in Liverpool, England.  Example: On February 12, 1993 a small boy who was to turn three in March was taken from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two 10 year old boys. Jamie Bolger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson.  They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him and threw stones at him and rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed batteries up his anus. They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created.  These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities.  We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to University.   They are getting away with their crime. They need to pay, and we have to do something to make them pay for their horrific crime. They took Jamie's life violently away, and in return they get a new life. Please add your name and location to the list and forward to friends and family. Please copy this email instead of forwarding so we do not get > at the beginning of sentances.  If you are the 200th person to sign please forward this email to st.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk attentioning it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and sent to your friends and family.  The Love-Bug virus took less that 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this does too. We need to protect our family and friends from creatures like Robert and Jon. One day they may be living next to your and your small children without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10, imagine what they could do as adults? With only one exception (the batteries in the victim's anus  they went into his mouth) the details of the crime as outlined in the e-mail are accurate. The boy was taken from a shopping mall while there with his mother. (A video surveillance camera captured footage of the two killers leading James away.) The child was brutalized as he was forced to walk along with the boys. (Witnesses later reported seeing the boys dragging, pushing, and carrying the weeping-two-year old during a disjointed journey through the streets of Liverpool.) And they did kill him in the manner described, albeit more brutally than even the text of the e-petition lets on. Two days after the murder, James' remains were found on a lonely stretch of railroad track. He was naked from the waist down  his shoes, socks, trousers, and underpants had been taken off. His penis had been manipulated by his abductors, but he had not been anally penetrated (by batteries or anything else). He'd been beaten to death with rocks, bricks, and an iron bar. As the boys hammered at him, they splattered him with model airplane paint stolen days earlier. Once he was dead, his killers laid him on the tracks, and his body was cut in two by a passing train. (The killers hoped to hide their crime by having it mistaken for an accidental death of a young child who'd foolishly played on the tracks.)  Venables and Thompson were taken into custody a few days later. Each sought to blame the other for the killing, but both eventually confessed. They were tried, found guilty of murder, sentenced, and placed in separate detention homes. The killers have not seen each other since the trial. All this is true. And horrifying. Yet even so, there's no point in signing the petition or urging others to. Beyond all the usual problems with e-petitions, one issue specific to this case rules against the utility of such a plan: the situation being decried is already a done deal. On 8 January 2001, the High Court of England guaranteed both Venables and Thompson lifelong anonymity plus an unprecedented open-ended injunction barring any publicity about them. Each of these young men were released in June 2001 when they were 18. The e-mail states that two killers "will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence." That statement is false. Although there is no theoretical maximum length of sentence imposed, a minimum sentence of 8 years had been set. And that 8-year minimum was satisfied. The boys were detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (without a maximum fixed term). Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) sentences are imposed only in cases of murder and manslaughter committed by children under 18. In these cases, the judge sets a tariff (minimum term, defined as the period required for retribution and deterrence). Once the tariff has been satisfied, the prisoner is assessed on the basis of the likely risk he will pose to the outside community. Therefore, a killer sentenced to such a term is eligible for release once the tariff has been served, provided he does not impress the court as posing a danger to society. The judge at Venables' and Thompson's November 1993 trial set an 8-year tariff. In early 1994, Lord Taylor, then Lord Chief Justice, recommended increasing this minimum to 10 years. Michael Howard, Home Secretary, imposed a 15-year sentence on Venables and Thompson in July 1994, but his actions were ruled unlawful by the High Court, and the Court of Appeals in 1996, and struck down. Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, ruled in 2000 that the killers' tariff was 8 years, a term that was reached on 21 February 2001. Venables' and Thompson's sentences were thus 8 years each, and they have been served. Had the sentences unlawfully imposed by Michael Howard been upheld, then the e-petition's claim about the killers' only having served "half their sentences" would be relevant. The anonymity guarantee and publication ban were set in place by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the High Court's Family Division. She was convinced the pair would be genuinely at risk if their identities and locations were disclosed, hence her ruling. "Although the crime of these two young men was especially heinous, they have the right of all citizens to the protection of the law." She said people other than James Bulger's family "continue to feel such hatred and revulsion at the shocking crime and a desire for revenge that some at least of them might well engage in vigilante or revenge attacks." She may well have been right, especially in light of threats received. Dame Butler-Sloss banned the media from publishing any information leading to the identification or disclosure of whereabouts of Venables or Thompson, including photographs and descriptions of their appearance. She also banned, for 12 months, publication of information about their eight-year stay in local authority secure units. Even after that, confidential information relating to their treatment and therapy cannot be published.  The judge admitted she was aware the injunctions she imposed might not be fully effective outside England and Wales. She banned the domestic media from giving wider circulation to material from the Internet or media elsewhere if it was likely to breach the injunction.  Was it right for Venables and Thompson be protected from the public? Some said yes, that otherwise they'd have been torn limb from limb (and that would render society no better than those it would prosecute for such crimes), or that children (which the defendants were at the time of the Bulger murder) should not be held accountable for a crime  even a heinous one  in the same manner that we hold adults. Others said no, that the public had a right to know where potentially dangerous felons are, and others on that side of the fence laid claim to there being some crimes which cannot fully be expiated by time served. Jon Venables' reprieve from incarceration proved to be temporary when he violated the terms of his release by downloading and distributing indecent images of children and was returned to jail in March 2010. In July 2013 the U.K. parole board confirmed that Venables had been granted parole for a second time, although that body declined to provide details about when he would be released. In June 2006 the following related item began circulating: Hello friends I am just so angry, frustrated and really upset at what has happened at the Livingston Shopping Centre that I needed to let you all know the "truth" behind the mongrel murderer. About 3 yrs ago when I was working at the prison we found out that one of the boys (at the time aged about 12) that abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in the U.K., then brutally raped and murdered him, had reached the age of 18 and had been sent out to Australia with a new identity for his family, etc. Long story short is that he was given the name of Dante Arthurs, his grandfather's name is Arthur Dante, and his family moved into a house in Canning Vale. When the prison staff got wind of this it was all supposed to be kept hushed up, it was some sort of prisoner exchange deal the Aust Govt set up. Soon after he got here he assaulted a 12 yrd old girl in a park in Canning Vale and consequently came to Hakea prison but for only about 6 weeks as they couldn't get enough evidence on him and the incident was brushed under the mat. His parents used to visit him and their photos were on the computers at work and I clearly recall seeing his mum at the Livingston shops one day. I even had his address and because I've got friends and family in the area, I felt I had a right to tell them, stuff the prisons!! I had even driven past his house in Lakeview Rise estate in Canning Vale! Anyway when this happened yesterday I said to Ron, it'd be interesting to see if it's that Dante Arthurs guy from the U.K. and sure enough today we find out that it is him. I am, along with a lot of others, absolutely furious that the mongrel arsehole was allowed to come here via the Govt in the first place and that he was allowed to appear to live a normal life!! Why haven't the police done something about this - he should not be allowed to breathe air, he is the scum of the earth. And tonight he would be sitting back in a comfortable cell in prison, having just had a reasonable hot dinner and be watching TV! That innocent little girl and her poor family will never ever be the same again - all because the piss weak Justice System and Govt allowed him to live in our country! There is a register for paedophiles so that the community are allowed to know where they're living and yet this piece of shit can live on our back door step with a new identity. People winge about illegal immigrants, what about this? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's whisked out of the country in the same manner he was bought here, then again knowing our pathetic laws, we'll probably keep him here in our justice system, costing tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed and entertain him PLUS the do-gooders will believe in their minds that they can rehabilitate him! I was just going to type "sorry " but I'm not at all sorry for alerting my friends to something that should be publicly known. Stay safe, talk soon. This message refers to the rape and murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu in a suburban shopping center restroom in Canning Vale, Australia, on 26 June 2006.  A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger's killers, renamed and relocated to Australia after having served out his sentence as a juvenile in England (even though both of the principals in the Bulger murder were then at least 23 years old).  The British High Commission and Australian police have denied any link between the Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu and Jamie Bulger killings: murder denied The British High Commission has ruled out claims that a man charged over the rape and murder of a Perth schoolgirl was one of two notorious English child killers. Perth police also denied that Dante Wyndham Arthurs, 21, of the Perth suburb of Canning Vale, was one of the killers of British boy James Bulger.  Clive Hunton, of the British High Commission in Canberra, said there was "no connection between the man arrested in Western Australia and the individuals involved in the James Bulger case." Arthurs was remanded in custody after appearing in Perth Magistrates Court charged with wilful murder, sexual penetration of a child and deprivation of liberty. He was charged following the discovery of the body of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu on the floor of a shopping centre toilet. The fact that Dante Arthurs was born in Australia (and was not an English immigrant using an assumed identity) has been confirmed by both his birth notice and the doctor who delivered him.  Also, his fingerprints do not match up with those of Jonathan (Jon) Venables or Robert (Bobbie) Thompson, the murderers of James Bulger. The e-mailed rumor quoted above was presented as if it were written by a prison officer.  According to the  West Australian, that message is being investigated by Australian authorities: The Department of Corrective Services has confirmed that an investigation was under way into an email claiming to be from a prison officer which was sent to thousands of people across Australia. 'The email appears to have come from outside the department,' a spokeswoman said. Nonetheless, rumors persisted that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were relocated to Australia, and in May 2008 Australian MP Liz Cunningham raised the issue of investigating whether the pair had been accepted by Queensland authorities.   In March 2010, the BBC reported that Jon Venables (then age 27) was back in prison for after having breached the terms of his release. Image caption: Denise Fergus, the mother of murdered two-year-old James Bulger,  attends a press conference to launch an appeal to raise funds for bullied children on March 14, 2008 in Liverpool, England. The Red Balloon learner Centre bearing James Bulger's name will be a sanctuary for bullied children.  Adshead, Gary and Sean Cowan.  "Birth Doctor Scoffs at Arthurs Rumours."
  The West Australian.  30 June 2006. Burrell, Ian.  "Bulger Killers Are Granted Right to a Life of Anonymity."
  The [London] Independent.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Dyer, Clare.  "Bulger Killers Close to Release."
  Manchester Guardian Weekly.  8 November 2000  (p. 7). Gartrell, Adam.  "Bulger Link to Killing Denied."
  The Advertiser.  29 June 2006. Giles, Darrell.  "Robert Thompson and Jon Venables Mystery."
  The [Queensland] Courier-Mail.  4 May 2008. Lowrie, Margaret.  "Two Boys Found Guilty in Bulger Murder Trial."
  CNN.  24 November 1993  (News; International; 12:24 pm ET). Rice, Robert.  "Home Secretary 'Acted Unfairly.'"
  [London] Financial Times.  31 July 1996  (UK News Digest; p. 7). Seamark, Michael.  "How Can the Law Give Secret New Lives to My Son's Killers?"
  [London] Daily Mail.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Sereny, Gitta.  "Re-Examining the Evidence."
  The [London] Independent.  6 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 4). Sereny, Gitta.  "Approaching the Truth."
  The [London] Independent.  13 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 5). Tibbetts, Graham.  "Evil Child Killers Set for New Identities."
  The Mirror.  22 January 2001  (p. 5). Associated Press.  "Notorious U.K. Child Killer Jon Venables to Be Paroled Again."
  CBSNews.com.  5 July 2013. BBC News.  "James Bulger Murderer Jon Venables Returned to Prison."
  2 March 2010. news.com.au.  "'Sombre' School Mourns Murdered Girl."
  28 June 2006. On Oct. 11, 2023, a user on X named Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) posted a video with a caption that claimed it showed the U.S. military "sending huge planes full of heavy-duty equipment to Israel," apparently to be used in its war against Hamas.  However, the video in the post showed clips that were at least four years old. In other words, the video had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war. post Israel-Hamas war As we previously reported, the account bearing Wallace's name is known for spreading baseless conspiracy theories following massive tragic events. He has even bragged about making money on X based on promoting such false rumors. reported baseless conspiracy theories bragged He was warned not to post this video from Maui, Hawaii, which it turns out is actually an explosion in Macul, Chile, in May. It got 20,000 retweets, 54,000 likes and 10 million views before being Community Noted. He's making money from viral false posts like this. pic.twitter.com/SjtJmNHm0X pic.twitter.com/SjtJmNHm0X  Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) August 14, 2023 August 14, 2023  The video in question showed a C-5M Super Galaxy taxiing and taking off from a runway. During the taxiing process, several aircraft, possibly CV-22 Osprey and other helicopters, were visible on the ground. The video consisted of three total clips. We traced the first and third clips to a YouTube video that was uploaded on Oct. 5, 2019. It looked to have been recorded on the day before it was uploaded. The number on the side of the airplane appeared to be "7030." YouTube video The second clip in the video showed an airplane with the number "7045." That clip was at least months old, according to another YouTube video that showed the exact same shot at the 4:42 mark. In other words, Wallace's video showed two different aircraft, not one. YouTube video In Wallace's upload of these clips, the shots were mirrored horizontally. This mirroring made the words and numbers appear backwards. Sometimes, misinformation and disinformation purveyors mirror images and videos in order to try to avoid reverse-image search detection. We reached out to Wallace to ask if he was aware that the video was old. We also asked him if he was the person who horizontally mirrored the shots. This story will be updated if we receive answers to our questions. While the video itself was unrelated to the war, the rest of Wallace's post contained genuine reporting from The Associated Press that was published days following Hamas' surprise terrorist attack in Israel. That story read as follows: The Associated Press Hamas' surprise terrorist attack A plane carrying advanced armaments designed to facilitate significant military operations landed Tuesday evening at the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel, the Israel Defense Forces said. We are grateful for the US backing and assistance to the IDF, and to the State of Israel in general, during this challenging period. Our common enemies know that the cooperation between our militaries is stronger than ever, and is a key part in ensuring regional security and stability, the IDF said in a statement. Further, on Oct. 10, the U.S. Department of Defense published specifics of the kind of equipment being sent to Israel: U.S. Department of Defense [U.S. President Joe] Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today and Biden assured him that the U.S. response to the events will be swift, decisive and overwhelming. "My team has been in near constant communication with our Israeli partners and partners all across the region and the world from the moment this crisis began," the president said. "We're surging additional military assistance, including ammunition, and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome. We are going to make sure that Israel does not run out of these critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens." For more details about the war, including the most recent death toll figures, we recommend referencing live updates from ABC News, The New York Times and The AP. ABC News The New York Times The AP Al Lawati, Abbas, and Nadeen Ebrahim. Israel Is at War with Hamas. Heres What to Know. CNN, Oct. 9, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-explained-mime-intl/index.html. C-5M Super Galaxy Takeoff (2019). YouTube, Gung Ho Vids, Oct. 5, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqY7YVqrytc. Haworth, John, et al. Israel-Gaza Live Updates: 22 Americans among the Dead.ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/?id=103804516. Kingsley, Patrick, et al. Israel-Hamas War: Israel Agrees to Unity Government as War With Hamas Intensifies.The New York Times, Oct. 11, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/11/world/israel-news-hamas-war. Liles, Jordan. Biden Did Not Fall Asleep While Meeting with Maui Fire Victims, C-SPAN Video Confirms. Snopes, Aug. 22, 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-asleep-maui-video/. Powered Vertical Takeoff with a Payload of 120 Metric Tons: C-5M Super Galaxy. YouTube, Future Machine Tech, May 4, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwHumNej-w. The First Plane Carrying US Armaments Lands in Israel, IDF Says. The Associated Press, Oct. 10, 2023, https://apnews.com/live/israel-hamas-war-live-updates#0000018b-1d0b-d13a-a5af-ffab53b50000. U.S. Flowing Military Supplies to Israel, as Country Battles Hamas Terrorists.U.S. Department of Defense, Oct. 10, 2023, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3553040/us-flowing-military-supplies-to-israel-as-country-battles-hamas-terrorists/. 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. A series of creepy images purportedly showing a half-human, half-lion hybrid appeared in mid-October 2017, and quickly made the usual rounds on social media:    These images were originally posted along with a piece of Indonesian text claiming that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness: text claiming Telah ditemukan bayi hasil hubungan manusia dan singa betina.... Dunia sudah mao kiamat....Ketik amin dan bagikan... The baby has been found to be the result of a human relationship with the lioness...The world is doomed...Type in Amen and share it...  This is not the first time that we have come across images purportedly showing a half-human, half-animal hybrid. In every case, we found that either the images or the attached claims were faked in one way or another. For instance, a "human-dog hybrid" was actually asculpture, a "gorilla-human" was a doctored image, and a "goat-person" was actually just a deformed goat. In the case of this particular image, the human-lion is a silicone doll.  sculpture image deformed Social media user Octavia Mulia told Kumparan.com that the photographs had been posted by her sister and that they were originally shared in jest. When the images went viral, Mulia found it necessary to explain that these photographs actually showed a silicone doll and not a real human-lion hybrid (text translated via Google and edited for clarity): Octavia Mulia Kumparan.com Hasilnya, foto tersebut bukanlah bayi sungguhan, tetapi hanya sebuah boneka. "Itu namanya silicon doll. Jadi kakak aku bikin ginian (unggahan di Facebook) buat bercandaan doang sama teman-teman toys lovernya," kata Octavia saat dikonfirmasi kumparan, Jumat (13/10/2017). Octavia dan kakaknya tidak menyangka unggahan ini akan viral di Facebook dan banyak orang yang percaya. Padahal awalnya hanya untuk bercanda. Kakak saya hanya bikin postnya saja buat joke satir sama teman-teman komunitasnya. Tapi ternyata terus tembus 5,5 ribu share karena orang pada percaya," kata Octavia. Menurut Octavia, kakaknya mendapatkan foto boneka itu dari rekannya sesama penggemar mainan. Keduanya bertemu dalam forum Toyslover Planet 12. The photograph is not a real baby, but just a doll. "It's a silicon doll my sister uploaded to Facebook to share with her friends who love toys," confirmed Octavia, Friday (13/10/2017). Octavia and her sister did not expect this upload to go viral on Facebook and that so many people would believe it. Initially, it was intended as a joke. "My sister made a post just to joke with her friends, but it kept going with 5.5 thousand shares because people believed it," said Octavia. According to Octavia, her sister got the doll photo from her fellow toy fans. They met in the Toyslover Planet 12 forum. These images show a silicon doll that was created by Italian artist Laira Maganuco. These images were featured on her Etsy page in a listing for a "baby Licantropo," or baby werewolf, doll. Maganuco also posted images showing the creation of this "baby Licantropo" to her Facebook page: featured Facebook   The images were originally shared with the claim that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness. Although scientists are experimenting with various chimeras, it is generally thought that creating human-animal hybrids is virtually impossible: impossible In general, two types of changes prevent animals from interbreeding. The first includes all those factorscalled pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanismsthat would make fertilization impossible. After so many generations apart, a pair of animals might look so different from one another that theyre not inclined to have sex. If the animals do try to get it on despite changed appearances, incompatible genitalia or sperm motility could pose another problem: A human spermatozoon may not be equipped to navigate the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, for example. The second type of barrier includes post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms, or those factors that would make it impossible for a hybrid animal fetus to grow into a reproductive adult. If a human were indeed inclined and able to impregnate a monkey, post-zygotic mechanisms might result in a miscarriage or sterile offspring. The further apart two animals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce viable offspring. At this point, humans seem to have been separate from other animals for far too long to interbreed. We diverged from our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, as many as 7 million years ago. (For comparison, our apparent tryst with the Neanderthals occurred less than 700,000 years after we split off from them.) Bosch, Torie.  "We Mated with Neanderthals. Can We Breed With Other Animals, Too?"
  Slate.  14 November 2006. Kumparan.  "Fakta Di Balik Foto Bayi Hasil Perkawinan Manusia Dengan Singa."
  13 October 2017.