Did Trump Inherit a 'Depleted' Military From Obama?
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.
Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. In October 2021, a list of what appeared to be failed, and in some cases rather bizarre, historical proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution proved popular on the online forum Reddit. An Oct. 20 post bore the headline "A list of American amendments that were never approved," and consisted of a photograph of a page from a book, containing the following text: Oct. 20 post The following is a very limited list of some of the proposed amendments that never left the halls of Congress: 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate1876 The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding1878 An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President1893 Renaming this nation the United States of the Earth1893 Abolishing the United States Army and Navy1894 Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs1912 Making marriage between races illegal1914 Finding divorce to be illegal1916 All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army.1933 An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war1938 The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories1947 The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%1948 The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.   On the whole, the list presented 15 proposed amendments with a very high degree of accuracy. Most were entirely accurate, a few were accurate in their substance, with some relatively insignificant disclaimers necessary, and only one involved a degree of misrepresentation.  The source of the list was "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It," a book that has been printed and updated by Oak Hill Publishing, since the early 1990s. The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It Oak Hill Publishing As the book suggests, the 15 proposals on the list represent a very tiny fraction of all of the failed proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution over the years. According the U.S. Senate historian, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789. Of those, only 27 have come into effect, while six others gained the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress, but failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789 The following is a breakdown of the details and context associated with each of the 15 failed amendments included in the list, presented in chronological order. 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate. In April 1876, U.S. Rep. Sobieski Ross, R-Pennsylvania, presented two "memorials" (petitions) on behalf of 22 residents of Potter County in northern Pennsylvania, near the border with upstate New York. One called for the "abolition of the presidency," the other called for the "abolition of the United States Senate." The proposed amendments were forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, but do not appear to have advanced from there.  presented two "memorials" (petitions) In April 1911, U.S. Rep. Victor Berger, a Socialist from Wisconsin, introduced his own proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate. The resolution read, in part: proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth... All legislative powers shall be vested in the House of Representatives. Its enactments, subject to referendum...shall be the supreme law, and the President shall have no power to veto them, nor shall any court have the power to invalidate them. Berger's proposal never made it out of committee, but shortly afterwards, the Senate passed a separate resolution that would go on to become the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct popular elections to the U.S. Senate, and replaced the existing method whereby state legislatures selected the members of the upper chamber.  separate resolution 1876: "The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.". This appears to be a reference to the Blaine Amendments  a series of proposals between 1875 and 1876, the first of which was made by James Blaine, a Maine Republican who was a member of the House, and then the Senate, during that period. Blaine's December 1875 proposal prohibited states from allowing religious groups or schools to receive taxpayer dollars, as follows:  December 1875 proposal No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any funds so raised, or lands so used, be divided among any religious sects or denominations. However, it did not address the eligibility of "religious leaders" to hold office, and its restrictions relating to public funding were limited to the states, rather than including federal funding. A subsequent Republican revision of Blaine's proposal, in 1876, did expand the funding restrictions to the federal level, but did not involve barring religious leaders from holding office.  Republican revision 1878: "An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President."  In the spring of 1878, U.S. Rep. Milton Southard, D-Ohio, introduced a proposal to replace the existing office of the president with a new "Supreme Executive Council of three." The triumvirate was to be chosen by "qualified electors" of the states, and taken from three would-be new districts: the Western states; the Eastern and Middle states; and the Southern states.  The original proposal can be found here. The exact stage at which the proposed amendment failed is not clear.  here 1893: "Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth'"1893: "Abolishing the United States Army and Navy." Based on a news report from the spring of 1893, and a 1987 New York Times article, both these measures were included in a proposed constitutional amendment put forward in February 1893, by U.S. Rep. Lucas Militiades Miller, D-Wisconsin.  news report from the spring of 1893 1987 New York Times article However, Miller may have made the proposals at the request of James Seldon Cowen, a Virginia inventor with eclectic interests and theories, who advanced detailed proposals for renaming the country, as well as abolishing the Army, Navy and their "schools of organized murder," in a book published the previous year.  inventor eclectic interests in a book published the previous year 1894: "Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs."In 1894, U.S. Sen. William Frye, R-Maine, introduced a proposal to amend the preamble to the Constitution and explicitly assert the Christianity of the United States. After the words "We the people of the United States," and before "in order to form a more perfect union," Frye proposed to add the following:  proposed to add the following ...devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of God in all the affairs of men and nations, and grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty; and encouraged by the assurances of His word, invoke His guidance, as a Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ,... 1912: "Making marriage between races illegal." In December 1912, U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Georgia, introduced a proposal to prohibit inter-racial marriage by way of constitutional amendment. Roddenberry, a white supremacist and racist extremist even by the standards of the early 20th century, explicitly cited his own revulsion at the recent high-profile marriage between Jack Johnson, the Black heavyweight boxer, and Lucille Cameron, a white woman, as the catalyst for his crusade against "miscegenation," as interracial relationships were at that time widely described.  In support of his cause, Roddenberry described inter-racial marriage as being "repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit," according to a contemporaneous news report that contains some exceptionally offensive racist language.  news report Roddenberry's proposed amendment did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee, but several states subsequently introduced laws banning inter-racial marriage, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia, that any and all laws prohibiting or restricting marriage based on racial considerations were in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.  did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia 1914: "Finding divorce to be illegal." In February 1914, U.S. Sen. Joseph Ransdell, D-Louisiana, proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce in the United States, arguing that the increased prevalence of divorce posed a threat to "the home," which he described as "the chief bulwark of society." He added: increased prevalence He added The remedy by constitutional prohibition is drastic, but the malady is so fatal that nothing short of it will prove efficacious. In the United States, divorce is spreading with alarming rapidity. It has permeated every walk of life and is prevalent among every class of people. The proposal did not make it out of committee.  did not make it out of committee 1916: "All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army." Several sources refer to a 1916 petition, signed by a group of Nebraska residents, which proposed to amend the constitution by requiring a referendum in order to declare war. A 1987 New York Times article reported that "the petition proposed that all those who voted in favor of the United States entering World War I be willing to enlist." Several sources We haven't yet tracked down that 1916 petition, but its description in the 1987 Times article was based on the account of a National Archives curator, and so can be relied upon as accurate. We were able to locate a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916, by U.S. Rep. Denver Church, D-California, who similarly called for a popular vote before any declaration of war. However, it's not clear if this was separate to the "Nebraska" proposal, or one and the same.  a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916 1933: "An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million." On May 9, 1933, U.S. Rep. Wesley Lloyd, D-Washington, proposed House Joint Resolution 178, which called for a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set "the maximum amount of wealth allowed to any one individual" at a ceiling of "1,000,000 gold dollars." It's not clear at what stage the proposal died, but it does not appear to have reached a vote in either house.  House Joint Resolution 178 1936: "An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war."true. (The proposed amendment would still have allowed the U.S. to go to war without popular approval, in the event of an attack or invasion). Since the 1910s, several members of Congress advocated for the introduction of referendums as a prerequisite for the United States' entering a war. Most notably, between 1935 and 1936, U.S. Rep. Louis Ludlow, D-Indiana, embarked on what one historian described as a "war referendum crusade."  one historian described as In January 1935, he introduced a resolution in the House, calling for a constitutional amendment that would require that, "except in the event of attack or invasion," any Congressional resolution to go to war must be put to a popular referendum, and would not come into effect unless backed by a majority of voters.  The resolution was debated in the House Judiciary Committee, where it remained during 1935 and 1936, but advanced no further. 1938: "The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories." In April 1938, U.S. Rep. Gomer Griffith Smith, D-Oklahoma, introduced House Joint Resolution 661, a proposed constitutional amendment that stated: "Drunkenness in the United States and all Territories thereof is hereby prohibited." The proposal was considered by the House Judiciary Committee, but appears to have gone no further. In a copy of the resolution provided to the committee  and now held by the National Archives  an unknown individual added a handwritten note ironically suggesting an additional section: "That period of time, commonly known as Saturday night, is hereby stricken from the calendars of the United States, and abolished." copy of the resolution 1947: "The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%"true. This one appears to be referring to one of two tax-related proposed constitutional amendments put forward in 1947 by U.S. Rep. Noah Mason, R-Illinois. We haven't yet been able to locate the exact wording of those proposals, but we know that a subsequent compendium of proposed constitutional amendments, compiled by the U.S. Senate Library, described House Joint Resolutions 24 and 256 as both being "relative to taxes on incomes, inheritances and gifts." compendium of proposed constitutional amendments 24 256 We also know that in the previous Congress, in 1945, Mason  a Welsh-born conservative Republican  had proposed House Joint Resolution 88, which the same compendium described as proposing to "repeal the Sixteenth Amendment"  which allowed Congress to levy a federal income tax without having to distribute those monies among the states  as well as limiting "income, gift and inheritance tax to 25 percent."  House Joint Resolution 88 It is therefore highly likely that Mason's subsequent proposals, in 1947, called for substantially the same outcome. 1948: "The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others."In May 1948, U.S. Rep. Oren Harris, D-Arkansas, introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution as follows: "The right of any number of citizens to voluntarily segregate themselves from others for any lawful purpose shall not be denied."  introduced a proposal Harris, who opposed racial desegregation, was explicitly responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Shelley vs. Kraemer, which had been published just days earlier. In that opinion, the Court had ruled that racially restrictive covenants  which were relatively common at that time and prohibited homeowners in historically white neighborhoods from selling their houses to non-white buyers  violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  explicitly responding Shelley vs. Kraemer Harris's proposal languished in the House Judiciary Committee.  1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.  In 1968, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisconsin, proposed a constitutional amendment that stated simply "Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every state shall guarantee this right." proposed Nelson, a progressive Democrat, environmentalist and co-founder of Earth Day, proposed the same amendment again in January 1970, explaining:  proposed the same amendment again in January 1970 In its degradation of the quality of American life, in its danger to the future of man himself, I believe the environmental crisis is the greatest single threat to our pursuit of those inalienable rights  life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness  which we have recognized as a society. Although that resolution was first introduced in 1970, the 91st Congress lasted until early 1971, so it's reasonable to date it to that year, although 1970 would probably be more suitable.  A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dissolve the United States Senate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/A-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-dissolve-the-United-States-Senate/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021. In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy.  country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19   As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that goes against all available evidence.  The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes: Guinness writes The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks, thus the Tahya Misr Fund became the ne record holder. This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 500 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long.  So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks participating in this convoy. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy also includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multiple-day event and some trucks may only be participating for a portion of the journey.  These variables make it difficult to estimate just how many trucks are participating. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and we will update this article if more information is made available.  Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." reported Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, said that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks:  David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg.   On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks.  freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks   The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers.  originated with one of the protest's organizers The number also seems implausible due to what we know about the trucking industry in Canada.  According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate.  Canadian Trucking Alliance The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function." statement   Canada Police Fear Violence at Trucker Vaccine Protest. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-police-fear-violence-trucker-vaccine-protest-82497084. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests - Canadian Trucking Alliance. https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Hundreds of Truckers Headed to Ottawa in Freedom Rally Convoy against Vaccine Mandate | CBC News. CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/freedom-rally-bc-jan-23-1.6324942. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Largest Parade of Trucks. Guinness World Records, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-truck-convoy. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. The author of a Wisconsin income tax overhaul sees the flat tax in the Flatland to the south as a beacon for Republicans trying to ease the Badger States heavy tax burden on the middle class. We have a long ways to go in Wisconsin, state Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield,told reporters.Everyone in Illinois pays 5 percent. Illinois millionaires  pay less of a rate in taxes than Wisconsins lower income, middle-class families. Researchers deem Illinois personal income tax structure regressive because a uniform tax rate ultimately takes a bigger bite from lower incomes than higher ones. Wisconsin pioneered the opposite approach, a progressive system in which tax rates rise with earnings. Kooyenga argues change is long overdue. Wisconsin was the first state to enact an income tax in 1911, he  wrote in a May 27, 2013postingon the conservative Right Wisconsin website. The complexity of the Wisconsin tax code has exponentially grown as Madison politicians believed the tax code was their magic wand which could be used to accomplish political and social objectives. His conclusion: As a direct result, our tax code picks winners and losers and is one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyengas plan reduces rates and collapses several tax brackets. It comes on top of Gov. Scott Walkers tax-cut proposal. Combined they reduce taxes by nearly $790 million over two years. Top earners would likely receive the majority of the $444 million in tax savings under Kooyengas plan, and those with modest incomes would land in the same tax bracket as very high earners, theJournal Sentinel reported.Kooyenga acknowledges that, but says everyone deserves tax relief and that the top 10 percent right now pay over 50 percent of the tax revenue in Wisconsin. But Kooyengas claim wasnt about the impact of his plan. Rather it was about the tax system as it stands today. Does Wisconsin have one of the most progressive tax codes in the country? The rankings Kooyengas plan focuses on the personal income tax, so well confine our analysis to that rather than all taxes in the code. We found two 50-state studies comparing income tax burdens by income level, and Kooyenga cited the same research when we asked him for backup. AMarch 2013 studyof 2010 tax data by the non-partisanMinnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, a research organization, concluded that: -- Among 42 states with an income tax (and the District of Columbia), Wisconsin is the 9th most-progressive when comparing married couples with $10,000 of gross income to those with incomes of $150,000, $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million. -- Wisconsins ranking drops lower, in a range from 11th to 15th most progressive, when comparing a couple earning $35,000 to each of those four higher levels. The ranks were 11, 12, 15 and 15. Minnesota came in number 2. The second study cited by Kooyenga is aJanuary 2013 examinationby the nonpartisan, liberalInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy(ITEP) in Washington, D.C. (The group is a partner organization to Citizens for Tax Justice, which hascriticized the Walker and Kooyenga tax cutsas costly and regressive. Also, on May 30, 2013, ITEP released areview of Kooyengas plan, concluding that the top 20 percent of earners, a group with an average income of $183,000, would receive more than two-thirds of the benefit.) In any event, the groups earlier 50-state study -- the one cited by Kooyenga to back up his claim -- found that Wisconsins income tax was the 12th most progressive in the nation. That ranking is not revealed in the report, which deals with a broader variety of state and local taxes, but the group made it available to us from its unpublished database. So, the two studies rank the income tax here in a range from 9th to 15th most progressive. That puts Wisconsin among the top 21 to 36 percent of most progressive income tax states, depending on the comparison point and the study. Of course, thats just among the states that levy a personal income tax -- the tax that is the main way to add a progressive element to a tax system. Four states that dont levy a personal income tax are on the ITEPs top-10 most regressive list for their overall tax systems, so its safe to say Wisconsins income tax approach is more progressive than in those additional states that dont even use this progressive tool. Of the two studies, the ITEP research is more up to date, but is limited to non-elderly taxpayers. It, unlike the Minnesota study, accounted for the effect of reductions that Walker initiated in 2011 in the earned income tax credit for low-income workers, a cut of 19 percent, or $56 million over two years. That change made the income tax less progressive, but we dont know how it affected Wisconsins ranking vs. other states, some of whom made similar changes. Digging deeper From the ITEP study, Kooyenga highlighted tables showing that Wisconsins top 20 percent of earners pay an effective income tax rate considerably higher than the national average. Similarly, for the lowest 20 percent, Wisconsins burden is lower than the 50-state average. Thats true, and it demonstrates the progressive nature of the Wisconsin system. The progressive income tax offsets the regressive effect, for example, of the sales tax. Aside from the graduated rate structure that rises with income, the states sliding standard deduction is powerfully progressive, as is the itemized deduction credit, notes Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance president Todd Berry. But the ITEP study also shows that by the time earnings reach an average of $28,000, Wisconsins personal income tax bite is already over the national average for the second 20 percent. PolitiFact Wisconsin in November 2012 reviewed a claim by state Rep. Robin Vos that on income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners. We rated itMostly True. Wisconsin, in the 2013 ITEP study, is not singled out as at the very highest end as either progressive or regressive. Unlike most states, Wisconsin allows a large capital gains tax break, ITEP executive director Matthew Gardner wrote in an email. Since the benefits of this tax break go primarily to the best-off taxpayers, the capital gains tax break makes Wisconsins income tax much less progressive than you would think from just looking at the tax rates. Gardner said it would be reasonable to say that Wisconsin is in the upper tier of least regressive states based on its #12 ranking. But, in his view, its hard to describe the Wisconsin income tax -- or the tax system as a whole -- as among the most progressive in the US. In the Minnesota study, the rankings drop quite a bit when the comparison income is set at $35,000 instead of $10,000. The reason for that is related to the tax credits for very low earners that we mentioned earlier. Wisconsin has a prominent credit, helping to account for its progressive ranking. Such credits phase out as income rises, however, so those people would have a tax liability, unlike lower earners whose bill is wiped out by the credit, said Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota center. A few other states keep the credits in place at higher incomes, bumping up their progressive rating. Kooyenga could have balanced off some of the regressive effect of his plan by increasing tax credits for very low-income earners. But he notes that many workers in that category receive the credit even though they did not earn enough wages to have Wisconsin taxes withheld. Its a wage supplement in the form of a refund. That, in Kooyengas view, is one of the inappropriate social objectives in the tax code, his office told us. Our rating PItching his plan to begin flattening the Wisconsin state income tax code, Kooyenga said Wisconsin has one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyenga was talking about income taxes, and its clear from two national studies that Wisconsins tax is more progressive than two-thirds to four-fifths of the states that levy such a tax, depending on the study. So Wisconsin is clearly in the upper tier, but not in elite of the elite. We rate the claim Mostly True. In late March and early April 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes circulating on Facebook claiming that legendary actor Morgan Freeman had converted his 124-acre ranch in Mississippi into a bee sanctuary.   The text of the meme read, "Concerned about the loss of bees, Morgan Freeman converted his 124-acre Mississippi ranch into a bee refuge. He hired gardeners, filled acres with clover, planted hundreds of flowering trees, purchased 26 hives, and has turned himself into a beekeeper." Posts and articles on various websites stating the "Shawshank Redemption" star is a beekeeper with a bee sanctuary at his Mississippi residence have been circulating for years. They are sourced from an interview given by Freeman to late-night comedy host Jimmy Fallon in 2014. During the interview, Freeman acknowledged that he lived in Mississippi and stated he was new to beekeeping, having just purchased his bees from Arkadelphia, Arkansas, two weeks prior: interview  The website Mother Nature News in 2014 quoted Freeman talking about his beekeeping project, reporting that he made the following remarks during a media tour promoting the film "Lucy": quoted There's a concerted effort to bring bees back onto the planet ... We do not realize that they are the foundation, I think, of the growth of the planet, the vegetation... I have so many flowering things and I have a gardener too. Because she takes care of the bees too, all she does is figure out, 'OK, what would they like to have?', so we've got acres and acres of clover, we're planting stuff like lavender, I've got like, maybe 140 magnolia trees, big blossoms. In these comments attributed to him, Freeman mentioned environmental concerns associated with the survival of bees and making efforts to ensure his bees thrive. But he didn't actually state in those remarks that he converted his ranch into a "bee sanctuary" for the purpose of helping the environment. Over the years, news articles have cropped up sourcing Freeman's 2014 comments and reporting that he had converted his ranch in Mississippi to a bee sanctuary. In 2019, a large number of articles were aggregated from a Forbes story with the headline, "Morgan Freeman Converted His 124-Acre Ranch Into A Giant Honeybee Sanctuary To Save The Bees." But the Forbes story also cites Freeman's 2014 interview on Fallon. news articles cropped up Forbes story We were unable to find recent comments by Freeman confirming whether he currently keeps bees at his Mississippi residence, as of this writing. We reached out to Freeman's agency CAA and asked whether Freeman is still beekeeping and whether his effort would be described as a bee sanctuary meant to help the environment, but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story if we hear back. In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. On 31 December 2015, the British spoof and satire web site NewsThump posted an article parodying the innumerable Facebook-related hoaxes that have been prevalent of late on social media, such as rumors that the social media giant will be making all private posts public, or that the company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is giving away money to users who share a particular message: article private money Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has promised every Facebook user $1,000, but only if everyone stops sharing stupid hoaxes on his social network. The move comes after timelines have become inundated with ridiculous claims being shared by people stupid enough to think they could get a lot of money for doing literally nothing but sharing a Facebook post. Zuckerberg is said to have implemented a new algorithm to track hoaxes, and will make the payment to all Facebook users on the first of February if no new hoaxes are identified. Social media being what it is, an image from that spoof was circulated outside the context of the article, which led some Facebook users to inquire about whether what it said was true or not:  NewsThump describes itself as "Topical news satire from the UK and around the world. Never letting the truth ruin a good story." The spoof includes another made-up quote from "Simone Williams," which alludes to another type of rampant Facebook posts, scams involving fake offers of merchandise giveaways: merchandise giveaways Its a good offer, but Ive got one here where I can get a new Range Rover, and all I have to do is share this Facebook post from a dodgy looking page. Id really hate to miss out if this one is real. Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 Claim:  Terrorists are planning to strike the U.S. on 11 June 2004. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] PLEASE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND READ THIS. WHO KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE, BUT IT IS NOT WORTH TESTING OUT. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. IT WILL TAKE FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PEOPLE'S LIVES FOREVER! THANKS!! Please read the below that was forwarded...it is pretty scary. gloria sent this to me...this was sent to her from a coworker at CNN...i'm not sending this to freak everybody out...but just try to be careful... Hi all I hope everyone is doing well. The reason I am sending out this mass email to everyone is because of something that was brought to my attention the other day that I feel I need to tell as many people aspossible in case it turns out to be true.. One of my colleagues has a good family friend who works in city hall. This friend called my coworker on Friday to tell him about some intelligence the city has gotten regarding a possible terror attack in the city (most likely the subways) planned for this Friday and urged him to avoid the subways if possible. He also told him something about the city placing an order for 2 to 3 thousand extra body bags. Now you have to take these things with a grain of salt because I am sure they get tons of this intelligence that turns out to be nothing. However there are some things that coinside with this Friday that seem to give it a higher probability than usual. The terrorists attacked the WTC on 9/11. They attacked Spain's subways on 3/11. This Friday just happens to be 6/11 (thank GOD I'll be on a plane that day!). Whether that means anything or not who knows. The thing that really has me concerned however is that all of a sudden a lot of things are now closed on Friday due to Reagan's death. The stock market, banks, Mail and all federal buildings are closed. Obviously Reagan's death wasn't planned but the fact they chose Friday as the day to do this big honoring of him strikes me as a little to coincidental (less people going to work = less people on the subway). The question that I get most when I tell people about this is why wouldn't they go on TV and warn people. Well I think the answer to that is simple....they can't.  They would cause mass hysteria and the city would be out of control. Take this information and do with it what you want. I just felt the need to tell as many people as I could. God forbid something does happen this Friday and some people get hurt or die that I know and could have warned about it and didn't, well that would be a tough pill for me to swallow. I hope all this is bull and nothing happens this Friday or anyday for that matter. One thing is for certain though if I have to work on Friday I am taking a cab. Origins:  There's an old joke I've heard used by many a person called upon to deliver yet another generic opening speech at yet another public function, and it goes like this: "I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's seventh husband on his wedding night  I know what I'm supposed to do; I just don't know how to make it interesting."  This is an occasion when I can understand the sentiment  how can I write about the umpteenth variation of the same rumor and have anything interesting or informative to say, something that isn't a rehash of stuff I've written several times before?  I'm not sure, so in this case I'm not going to try.  I'll just reiterate the same points we've made elsewhere many times over the last three years:  The "extra body bags have been ordered" claim is a detail that shows up in rumor after rumor about upcoming disasters (usually ones about which the government is supposedly keeping quiet because they "don't want to cause a panic"), as it's a simple yet effective way of creating a striking visual image of death in the minds of readers.  (References to images such hospitals, ambulances, stretchers, and medics are similarly chilling, but they all allow for the possibility of survival, while a body bag signifies nothing other than the finality of death.) If a city government were really ramping up for a terrorist attack, there would be plenty of signs an insider might notice other than an order for "extra body bags": emergency personnel (police, firefighters, EMTs) being put on alert and scheduled for additional shifts, the implementation of extra security equipment and procedures, preparations to limit or close traffic to certain locations, stocking of emergency supplies (food, water, medical kits), maybe even requests to mobilize National Guard or federal troops.  Why is it that the one and only tangible piece of information these anonymous informants ever seem to have is that someone is stocking up on body bags?  Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government has warned us on several occasions about the heightened possibility of additional attacks, even when they had no specific information about when or where those attacks might occur.  That they would say nothing to the public when they did have specific information about the date and location of a possible attack makes no sense, but (as always) anonymous rumormongers conveniently explain away that incongruity by maintaining the government is keeping mum because to do otherwise might cause "mass hysteria." Is there a better recipe for "mass hysteria" than allowing a foreseeable attack to proceed against a completely unprepared and unwarned populace?  It serves no real purpose for terrorists to plan their attacks to fit into recognizable patterns. They might choose a date with symbolic importance (e.g., attacking the U.S. on the 4th of July would send a powerful symbolic message), but planning to strike on particular days simply because the dates make tidy numerical patterns is contrary to their purposes. They want to maximize their chances of success by attacking at times when their plans are least likely to be anticipated, and coordinating their strikes to fit easily recognized patterns is a pointless and poor way of accomplishing their goals.  As noted, President Reagan's death on 5 June 2004 was obviously not a scheduled event, and declaring the day of his funeral (11 June) to be a federal holiday wouldn't stop people from being killed in the event of a terrorist attack.  (The most common version of this message doesn't even identify a city by name  some readers assume it refers to New York, others to Washington, D.C.) Sure, fewer people might be out and about on a federal holiday, but there are plenty of people who aren't employed by the federal government (or financial institutions) and would still have to go to work that day, not to mention all the people in the city who use public transportation even on their days off.  Risking the deaths of, say, 20,000 people in order to avoid alarming 200,000 doesn't sound like much of a worthwhile trade-off. The New York Police Department has denied this rumor while (questionably) identifying it as a "part of a computer virus": denied THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED NO CREDIBLE THREAT INFORMATION CONCERNING A WIDELY-CIRCULATED EMAIL MESSAGE THAT DISCUSSES A PURPORTED SUBWAY ATTACK ALLEGEDLY PLANNED FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 11TH. IN ADDITION, THE EMAIL IS PART OF A COMPUTER VIRUS WHICH ATTACKS THE ADDRESS BOOKS OF ITS RECIPIENTS AND SPREADS BY USING THOSE ADDRESSES. COMPUTER USERS ARE REMINDED NOT TO OPEN MESSAGES OF FROM SUSPECT OR UNFAMILIAR SENDERS. (It's possible this message has been re-sent by some recipients whose PCs were already infected by viruses, but we haven't seen any evidence that the message itself was deliberately circulated as a way of spreading malevolent code.) June 11 came and went without incident; no terrorist attacks took place, and there was no news of any having been thwarted. The essence of this message was the same as countless other similar rumors we've traced since September 11: the world is a scary place, especially when you're dealing with hidden foes who might strike anywhere, at any time.  Asserting that the enemy will follow a predictable pattern allows us to regain a sense of direction, to feel that we have control of our futures, to believe that we can take active steps to avoid becoming victims rather than passively awaiting our fates.  What we fear most is the unknown, and these types of rumors provide us with the comfort of knowing something, even if that something proves to be bogus.  Whether this sort of comfort is worth the price of the false fears that usually accompany it is up to the individual to decide. Last updated:  14 March 2008    Sources:  Reuters.  "New York Police Say E-Mail on Subway Attack Is Hoax."  9 June 2004.