Was it Donald Trump who used his own aircraft to transport troops who were stuck?
In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991.
Lions and zebras generally don't coexist completely peacefully in the wild. Photographs and videos of these animals together in the plains of Africa frequently depict stalking, hunting, chasing, fighting, and, of course, eating behaviors. That's probably why an image purportedly showing a lion and zebra sharing a moment of peace together at a watering hole is frequently shared with comments such as "unbelievable but true!":   This image has been shared with a variety of captions over the years, such as "It's not eating time," "Alex and Marty" (a reference to the animated zebra-lion friendship in the movie Madagascar), "National Geographic: Behind the Scenes," and "Morning Sam" (a reference to an old cartoon in which Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog put their feud on hold when they clock out of work for the day): It's not eating time Alex and Marty National Geographic: Behind the Scenes Morning Sam  This picture however, is not an accurate representation of a lion and a zebra enjoying a moment at a watering hole. This image was digitally created for a 2010 advertisement for Traveler's Insurance. The general conceit of the advertisement was that while animals would normally be skittish at a watering hole (as predators might be nearby), Traveler's insurance company could "take the scary out of life" so that customers might enjoy the world in peace. Here's the description for the advertisement via Coloribus: Coloribus: This commercial featuring baboons, lions, zebras, crocodiles, vultures and all sorts of other animals getting along famously at what would normally be a very dangerous watering hole, is the first spot in the new 'Take the scary out of life' campaign from Travelers Insurance. The viral image may look genuine when it is viewed on its own, but in the context of the commercial (where it can be glimpsed around the 10-second mark) it's more clear the representation was created with the aid of digital editing:  Not only is this image a fabricated one, but the idea that watering holes serve as neutral safe-spaces for thirsty animals doesn't appear to be backed by much evidence. This idea most likely originated with, or at least was popularized by, a passage from Rudyard Kipling's The Second Jungle Book in which he described a "water truce" during a severe drought: water truce By the Law of the Jungle it is death to kill at the drinking-places when once the Water Truce has been declared. The reason of this is that drinking comes before eating. Every one in the Jungle can scramble along somehow when only game is scarce; but water is water, and when there is but one source of supply, all hunting stops while the Jungle People go there for their needs. In good seasons, when water was plentiful, those who came down to drink at the Waingunga  or anywhere else, for that matter  did so at the risk of their lives, and that risk made no small part of the fascination of the nights doings. This water truce played a part in Disney's live-action remake of the Jungle Book, released in 2016:  Lions sometimes won't attack typical prey animals for various reasons (e.g., they're severely outnumbered; they can't match the speed of the prey without first sneaking up on it), but if a lion is hungry, the concept of a waterhole "truce" isn't going to stop it. A 2013 study about the predatory habits of a group of lions in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park found that the felines frequently hunted near watering holes, especially when resources were scarce, as such sites are frequented by a variety of prey: study Lion kills were located in a preferentially selected zone around artificial waterholes, suggesting that these scarce resources form passive traps for ungulate prey. Lions are stalk-and-ambush hunters that use vegetative cover for concealment during hunting and are known to ambush prey in habitats surrounding high-prey abundance areas. In the Hwange ecosystem, lion habitat selection and movements are driven by waterholes and lions appear to rotate their hunting behaviour between these different hunting grounds. Water sources are also considered crucial in lion habitat selection in the Serengeti and thought to act as passive traps for ungulates in the Kruger ecosystem. Contrary to our predictions, areas close to waterholes were highly selected for kills regardless of seasonal conditions. Conway-Smith, Erin.  "South Africa's Drought Is Bad for Hippos, Great for Lions."
  USA Today.  3 February 2016. 
 Kipling, Rudyard.  The Second Jungle Book.
  New York: Century, 1899.
 Davidson, Zeke.  "Seasonal Diet and Prey Preference of the African Lion in a Waterhole-Driven Semi-Arid Savanna."
  Plos One.  6 February 2013. Claim:  Pronunciation problems plague exchange between traveler and room service in Far East hotel.  Status:  False.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2003] This exchange between an English-speaking traveller and a member of the hotel staff in a Far East hotel was recorded in the "Far-East Economic Review" about five years ago. It may take you a while to fathom it all out, but do try. Once you know what it is supposed to be, it really is hilarious!  Room Service:  Morny. Rune-sore-bees.Hotel Guest:  Oh, sorry. I thought I dialed Room Service.Room Service:  Rye, rune-sore-bees. Morny. Djewish to odor sunteen?Hotel Guest:  Uh... yes. I'd like some bacon and eggs.Room Service:  Ow July den?Hotel Guest:  What?Room Service:  Aches. Ow July den? Pry, boy, pooch...?Hotel Guest:  Oh, the eggs! How do I like them? Sorry. Scrambled please.Room Service:  Ow July dee baycome? Crease?Hotel Guest:  Crisp will be fine.Room Service:  Hokay. An Santos?Hotel Guest:  What?Room Service:  Santos. July Santos?Hotel Guest:  Ugh. I don't know... I don't think so.Room Service:  No. Judo one toes?Hotel Guest:  Look, I feel really bad about this, but I don't know what "judo one toes" means. I'm sorry.Room Service:  Toes! Toes! Why djew Don Juan toes? Ow bow eenglish mopping we bother?Hotel Guest:  English muffin! I've got it! You were saying toast! Fine. An English muffin will be fine.Room Service:  We bother?Hotel Guest:  No. Just put the bother on the side.Room Service:  Wad?Hotel Guest:  I'm sorry. I meant butter. Butter on the side.Room Service: Copy?Hotel Guest:  I feel terrible about this but...Room Service: Copy. Copy, tea, mill...Hotel Guest:  Coffee! Yes, coffee please. And that's all.Room Service:  One Minnie. Ass rune torino fee, strangle aches, crease baycome, tossy cenglish mopping we bother honey sigh, and copy. Rye?Hotel Guest:  Whatever you say.Room Service: Hokay. Tendjewberrymud.Hotel Guest:  You're welcome. Origins:   We've  been seeing this exchange kick about the Internet for several years, almost always baldly presented as a "this really happened!" tale, one replete with small touches indicating the action took place in a Far East Hotel or that this account appeared as a news item in one periodical or another.  Once again, a funny story penned by celebrated comic Shelley Berman has been dressed up to position it as a slice of real   life.  As Mr. Berman says on his web site: "The above dialogue never actually took place in any hotel anywhere in the world. It is an intentionally composed humorous fiction." web site If the name of Shelley Berman seems hauntingly familiar, it's likely because another of his works has also been bruited about the online world, the hilarious "Hotel Soap." Hotel Soap Barbara "room service with a smile" Mikkelson Last updated:  17 December 2005    Sources:   Berman, Shelley.  A Hotel Is a Place.   Los Angeles: Price/Stern/Sloan, 1972.   ISBN 0-8431-10211-X.    Berman, Shelley.  A Hotel Is a Funny Place.   Los Angeles: Price/Stern/Sloan, 1985.   ISBN 0-8431-1418-5. On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "God First Ministries" shared a message claiming that posts containing the word "Amen" were being banned by the social media site: Speak up America! Don't let our Freedom of Speech be silenced!Share to show FB we will say AMEN!    The comment section of the Facebook post displayed above quickly filled with messages (including many simply consisting of the word "amen"). On 17 June 2016, more than week after this message was posted to Facebook, it had accumulated close to 7,000 comments and had been shared more than 60,000 times. But curiously, Facebook had not deleted this message:   In addition to the proliferation of "amen" posts on Facebook, several groups and pages containing the word "Amen" (such as Peruvian band Amen, the advertising agency Amen Communications, and the political group Trump Amen Time To Win) are still operating on the web site, showing that the word has not been flagged for removal, either. Amen Amen Communications Trump Amen Time To Win The Facebook post displayed here (like all "type amen" posts) is a version of the common like farming scams, in which a Facebook page shares a salacious, outrageous, and often inaccurate post for the sole purpose of gaining likes and shares. Typing "amen"  or anything else  below a post contributes to its popularity on the site and bypasses certain algorithmic controls Facebook has against scams in advertisings. This social popularity can later be leveraged for monetary gain.  like farming popularity Facebook hasn't banned "type amen" posts. However, since Facebook is a private company and users of the site have to agree to its terms of service in order to sign up for an account, placing controls on its content would not constitute a violation of freedom of speech. terms In March 2020, as the outbreak of the novel coronavirus grew into a global pandemic, worried citizens of the world took to the internet in search of information about the disease caused by the virus, COVID-19. They turned to organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to get an accurate picture of how fast the disease was spreading, where cases were being reported, and what they should do to keep themselves (and their communities) safe. CDC WHO Johns Hopkins University also provided a valuable resource in the form of a real-time map that showed how the disease was spreading around the globe. At the time of this writing, the map from Hopkins' Coronavirus Research Center shows 137,445 total confirmed cases that have resulted in just over 5,000 deaths.    This is a genuine map from Johns Hopkins that is safe to access here. here Unfortunately, malicious actors saw the heightened concerns about COVID-19 as an opportunity to start spreading misinformation and malware. On March 9, 2020, Reason Security released a report stating that maps similar to the one above were being used to trick people into downloading malware:  report As global awareness of a Coronavirus pandemic gradually gives way to full out panic, and as governments begin ramping up their efforts to combat the virus and protect its citizens, global news agencies find themselves racing to answer the publics demand for accurate information about new Corona related infections, deaths, transmissions, etc. This demand creates a vulnerability that malicious actors have quickly taken advantage of by spreading malware disguised as a Coronavirus map. Reason Labs cybersecurity researcher, Shai Alfasi, found and analyzed this malware that had weaponized coronavirus map applications in order to steal credentials such as user names, passwords, credit card numbers and other sensitive information that is stored in the users browser. Attackers can use this information for many other operations as well, such as selling it on the deep web or for gaining access to bank accounts or social media. Hacker News explained that this malware attack targets people who are searching for any maps about COVID-19 and tricks them into downloading a map with a file that runs a malicious application on the user's computer. Once downloaded, the map appears similar to the legitimate map from Johns Hopkins shown above, but the software will actually compromise the computer and attempt to steal personal information, such as passwords and credit card information.  explained The malware attack specifically aims to target those who are looking for cartographic presentations of the spread of COVID-19 on the Internet, and tricks them to download and run a malicious application that, on its front-end, shows a map loaded from a legit online source but in the background compromises the computer. The real map from Johns Hopkins is viewable online and does not require you to download any software to use it. You can access the real-time tracking map by visiting this website. This is the official URL from Johns Hopkins, and no indication exists that this site is unsafe or infected with malware.  website ESRI, the company that provided the geographic information system (GIS) software to create Johns Hopkins' real-time coronavirus tracking map, attempted to clear up some of the confusion in a blog post. The company explained that the real online map found on Johns Hopkins' site "does NOT contain any malware (and NEVER contained malware)." The reports from Hacker News and the like are referring to a scam that uses an impostor version of the Hopkins map to trick users into downloading malware.  ESRI writes (emphasis ours): writes An increasing number of articles have been published on the Internet with unclear and sometimes misleading information concerning one of the primary dashboards for awareness concerning the spread of the Coronavirus. To be clear, the online map posted by Johns Hopkins University at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html does NOT contain any malware (and NEVER contained malware). This popular dashboard web application is hosted by Esri as part of our ArcGIS Online offering. The confusion comes from an issue where a malicious person created a downloadable Windows-based application containing malware whose display is practically identical to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus browser-based dashboard (see comparison figure below). Whomever posted the malicious downloadable app is attempting to take advantage of the hype around the Coronavirus, but it requires the user to either download the app executable, or it could be distributed by email for the user to then install onto their local Windows system. The malicious app once downloaded and installed deploys malware called AZORult which is designed to steal credentials in the background (among other activities). To make the user think they are getting a Coronavirus map viewer, the app calls the URL of the Johns Hopkins dashboard and displays the results inside the application window. Bottom-line, you are fine browsing the Coronavirus dashboard on the web with your browser as no software needs to be downloaded. If you come across someone offering a Coronavirus dashboard where you need to download software to view it, dont use it! In summary, a real-time map that tracks the spread of COVID-19 around the globe is available to view on the Johns Hopkins University website. This map is safe to use and does not require you to download any software. If you encounter an email or social media post that asks you to download a similar map, be cautious. It's likely someone is attempting to trick you into downloading a piece of malware.  website Sullivan, Mark.  "Cybercrooks See the Coronavirus as an Opportunity to Steal From You."
  Fast Company.  12 March 2020. Reason Blog.  "COVID-19, Info Stealer & the Map of Threats  Threat Analysis Report."
  9 March 2020. Wei, Wang.  "Beware of 'Coronavirus Maps'  It's a Malware Infecting PCs to Steal Passwords."
  Hacker News.  11 March 2020. Young, Michael.  "Coronavirus Downloadable Malware Map App Clarification."
  ESRI.  12 March 2020. Frost, Natasha.  "This Interactive Map From Johns Hopkins University Shows the Effects of Coronavirus in Real Time."
  Quartz.  7 March 2020. Warrick Dunnm who played 12 seasons in the NFL as a running back for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Atlanta Falcons, has been supporting single-parent families since his 1997 rookie season, when he started the Homes for the Holidays program to provide economically-disadvantaged single parents and their children with comprehensive programming for first-time homeownership.  Homes for the Holidays In September 2018, the former NFL player's charitable efforts, as well as a few facts about his upbringing and the death of his mother, were boiled down into a meme spread via social media:   This meme, for the most part, provided accurate information about Warrick Dunn and his charitable efforts. Dunn's mother, Betty Dunn Smothers, was a police officer in Baton Rouge who was killed in 1993 while working a second job as a security guard: killed Corporal Betty Smothers was shot and killed in an ambush attack while moonlighting as a security guard. Corporal Smothers was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car when she and the store manager went to a bank to make a night deposit. As they sat in the patrol car, three suspects approached and opened fire. They fatally wounded Corporal Smothers and injured the manager. All three suspects were arrested after the incident and sentenced to death for Corporal Smothers' murder. Corporal Smothers had been employed with the Baton Rouge City Police Department for 14 years, and is survived by her two daughters and four sons. Smothers' passing came just a few days before Dunn's 18th birthday and a month before he committed to playing college football at Florida State University (FSU). He was the eldest of Smothers' children, and by most accounts he assumed a father-figure role in the life of his five younger siblings. Here's how the Los Angeles Times described Dunn and his siblings in a December 1994 article headlined "Turning His Grief to Good: Florida State Running Back Warrick Dunn Sets an Example for All": Derek is doing well at Catholic High. Travis is fast and Bryson small, but he's growing. Summer and Samantha are running track and doing well in school. You listen to Warrick Dunn and hear a proud father talking of his children. And then you realize that Dunn is only 19. Still, he's in charge of his brothers and sisters, ages 11-17, now that Betty is gone. She was his best friend, a mother who worked two jobs, 16 hours a day, to keep the family together and to provide a few of the things that make being a kid a little more fun. If there's anything harder than a teen-ager being asked to go to the hospital in a police car, identify his mother and then go home to tell his brothers and sisters what happened, he doesn't want to know about it. It was Dunn, handling things as he always had, the father figure, but now without a mother. "I never really had a childhood," he says. "I've never been able to go out and just go crazy, like most kids, because I grew up staying in the house a lot, baby-sitting." Dunn graduated from FSU and was selected in the first round of the 1997 NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The rookie running back was challenged by head coach Tony Dungy to give back to the community during his time in Florida, and so Dunn decided to start the "Homes for the Holidays" program in order to help provide homes to single-parent families in honor of his late mother. The program managed to house three families during its first year. By 2018, that number had grown to 159: number My rookie year in the NFL, in Tampa, I was challenged by coach [Tony] Dungy, Dunn said. He told us, If you are going to live in this community, you want to be a part of this community and give back. From that challenge, I thought about my mom and her dream of home ownership, and thats how it all started. We did three homes in 1997, and now were up to 159. I grew up in a situation where we needed a lot of support. I lost my mom at 18. Single mom, six kids, and a Baton Rouge police officer. She was gunned down by armed robbers at a bank. When she lost her life, the city of Baton Rouge started a fund for us. And thats how we were able to survive and pay bills. And when I saw that from the city, that really helped me understand what it means to care about your neighbor and to give back and support. I just think now I have been driven for so many yearsthis is part of who I am, to want to see people smile and help anyone that I can possibly help. Our only quibble with this meme is the statement that Dunn "built and paid for over 145 houses for single mothers." While the former NFL quarterback has certainly donated plenty of time, money, and effort into his charitable endeavors, he did not single-handedly build and pay for all these homes. Dunn's non-profit, Warrick Dunn Charities, partners with other non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families: Warrick Dunn Charities Even in retirement, Dunn and his Warrick Dunn Charities are still partnering with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for disadvantaged families across the United States. In December, Dunn and Habitat combined to build homes number 158 (in Detroit) and 159 (in Atlanta) and place two families in them before the holidays. Furnished, as Dunn like to say, all the way down to the toothbrushes in the bathroom. Dunn's charity provides a down payment for the home, completely furnishes it, and provides other services such as financial literacy program in order to assist single parents as they become first time homeowners: homeowners Warrick Dunn Charities was created from the belief that a better future starts with hope. We are dedicated to strengthening and transforming communities by combating poverty, hunger and improving the quality of life for families and children. We help families thrive academically, socially, and economically. Warrick Dunn Charities, a 501(c)(3) recognized nonprofit, has helped single parents and children thrive academically, socially and economically. Warrick Dunn Charities has awarded millions in home furnishings, food and other donations to single-parent families and children across the nation to combat poverty, hunger and ensure families have comfortable surroundings and basic necessities to improve their quality of life. This meme's popularity in September 2018 was likely connected to a controversy surrounding another former NFL player: Colin Kaepernick. A number of social media users shared this meme along with messages stating that Nike should have used Dunn, not Kaepernick, in their latest commercial: Colin Kaepernick   This meme misleadingly suggests that Colin Kaepernick has not similarly sacrificed by using his own money for charitable endeavors.   However, in January 2018 Kaepernick completed his pledge to donate a total of $1 million to charity over eighteen months, with a list of all the organizations he donated to  viewable here.  here And Dunn himself praised Nike's latest advertising campaign for raising Kaepernick's profile as the latter drove the conversation about social justice: praised "I think its a brilliant campaign, Dunn said. "They just raised his profile because Kaepernick the last couple of years has been the face of this movement of social justice." To be the first guy to come out and really talk about the issues that black kids, black men are being shot and killed, I commend him," Dunn said in a CNN interview. When asked if he thought Nike's stance to create the campaign was a financial or moral decision, Dunn cited the latter. "Its a moral decision. It cant be about finances," Dunn said. "I think overall they (Nike) understand the issues. A lot of their star athlete spokesmen are African American. They have a lot of that demographic, so I think it's important they really go after the issues and not necessarily things that are financial." Fucillo, David.   "Here is a List of Every Organization to Which Colin Kaepernick Donated Money."
  Niners Nation.  31 January 2018. Henry, Jim.  "FSU Great Warrick Dunn Commends Nike, Colin Kaepernick on Ad Campaign."
  Tallahassee Democrat.  6 September 2018. Hodges, Jim.  "Turning His Grief to Good."
  Los Angeles Times.  31 December 1994. King, Peter.  "For NFL Giving, Warrick Dunn Is a Model
  Sports Illustrated.  19 January 2018. 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. An image purportedly showing a screenshot from a Russian state TV news program featuring eight Republican U.S. senators -- Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and John Thune (R-SD) -- made its way online in January 2019, along with the claim that the pictured American lawmakers were being "honored" or "thanked" for lifting sanctions against three companies controlled by Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska:   This image has been posted to social media accompanied by a variety of descriptive captions: posted social media This image is a genuine screenshot from the news program "60 " (60 Minutes) aired on Channel 1 Russia on 17 January 2019. The graphic featuring the 8 GOP lawmakers originally appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (the MSNBC logo is visible in the bottom right hand corner of the graphic) the day prior during a segment concerning the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed on three companies controlled by oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska. sanctions The graphic appears at the 9:30 mark of the following video, while a transcription from Maddow's report on these sanctions appears below the video: transcription  Shortly before Christmas, the Trump administration quietly released plans to lift U.S. government sanctions on companies connected to Deripaska. Deripaska is sanctioned because of the U.S. -- because of the Russian government interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016. Now, the sanctions on Deripaska's companies are consequential. The companies linked to Deripaska happen to be huge companies. So, even if you set aside the sanctions' effects on Deripaska personally, unsanctioning these huge Russian companies will also be really substantially economically beneficial to the Russian economy as a whole. Under American law governing sanctions like this, Congress has 30 days to review any decision by the administration to lift these kinds of sanctions. Within that 30-day window, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer brought forward legislation to in fact challenge that decision by the Trump administration, to block the lifting of the Deripaska-related sanctions. As we reported last night, every Democrat in the Senate chamber voted with Schumer on this, as did 11 Republican senators, a heterogeneous bunch of Republican senators, who broke ranks with Mitch McConnell and sided with the Democrats to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. That's a big number of Republican senators breaking ranks, especially after the Trump administration lobbied the Senate and the House really aggressively on this issue. Well, today, this afternoon, despite those 11 Republican senators breaking ranks and being willing to side with the Democrats on this, it turned out to be not enough because today there was a crucial vote on this matter which came with not a 50-vote threshold, but a 60-vote threshold to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. Schumer and the Democrats and the breakaway Republicans were able to put together 57 votes, but 57 isn't 60, and so you can thank top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell. You can thank all of these other Republican senators who get all of this public credit for supposedly being so hawkish and so realistic on Russia. You can thank them all for voting today to give Vladimir Putin's government in Russia a huge big economic present and voting to give Oleg Deripaska the biggest break of his life, even while his potential role in the Russian attack on our election remains a critical matter that is under ongoing investigation related to multiple criminal cases. Julia Davis, an investigative journalist and Russian media analyst, was one of the first to notice Maddow's graphic being featured on Russian State TV. Davis shared this screenshot on Twitter along with a brief message explaining its context. Twitter Davis wrote: "#Russia's state TV reports that for the first time since 2014, the US is lifting sanctions from Russian companies [#Deripaska's Rusal et al.] The host laughs out loud about the Democrats not getting enough votes to block the effort, expresses hope that this is just the beginning." We've included the relevant segment below from the "60 " broadcast, which starts around the 31-second mark (00:31) below: A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin."  A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin." MSNBC.  "Transcript: 1/16/19, The Rachel Maddow Show."
  16 January 2019. Vogel, Kenneth.  "Democrats Fall Short in Russia Sanctions Vote."
  The New York Times.  16 January 2019. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010