Has Trump suggested alterations to SSI that might result in the termination of disability benefits for numerous individuals?
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.
A series of imagespurportedly showinga UFO photographed by several different people began circulating via social media in October 2015: Yesterday afternoon in Memphis 4-6 random people posted these pictures on social media. The weirdest thing is that each of these individuals did not know each other and they all captured the same thing! Why isn't this being broadcasted on all major media outlets?! Somebody has some explaining to do. While the example Facebook post shown above reported that the alien ship was spotted over Memphis, Tennessee, other iterations of the photo set have claimed that the UFO was actually spotted inBenguela, Angola: claimed We'vehad a lot of people visiting the site over the past few weeks looking specifically for information about a remarkable UFO sighting in Banguela, Angola. The sightings were originally reported to MUFON and included a rather stunning image of the gigantic UFO that was not featured here on the UFOMG! copies of the reports. Here it isnow:  Even though these images all feature different settings, the UFO, as well as the surrounding cloud formations, pictured in each photograph are exactly the same. This means one of two things: Either a race of aliens has developed an efficient form of replicating technology, or the above-displayed photographs were created using the same stock image of a UFO. In fact, this series of photographs purportedly showing a UFO over Memphis (or Benguela) was created using a piece of fan art related to the V science fiction television series (about alien visitors to Earth) created bydigital artist Jukka Korhonen: artist   I was a big fan of V when it first came out. My love for the series has been growing bigger ever since they released the show on the DVD. The biggest news for V fans was the possible release of a sequel-series titled "V: The Second Generation". I quickly scetched out a few concept works and a fanmade poster to celebrate the announcement. As with many times in the media-mentality of amercan television, the "V: Second Generation" was not considered a mainstream series and so the network decided to freeze the project at the final meters. For this portfolio, I took out the V model I had made for the poster and combined it with one of my matteclouds. This image was one of the "doom" concept ideas that I had in mind when I first heard about the new series.  Modelled in trueSpace and postwork in Corel GS. This is NOT official art for the series, its merely fan-art from a dedicated admirer of Kenneth Johnson's work. I hope one day we will see the series come to life and see these iconic ships rise again to the LA skies ... In August 2018, police in Iowa charged 24-year-old Cristhian Rivera with the murder of Mollie Tibbetts, a 20-year-old college student who had gone missing while jogging more than a month earlier.  charged The investigation into the disappearance of Tibbetts had been closely followed on a national level for weeks, but the arrest of Rivera, who authorities say is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, prompted some commentators -- led by President Donald Trump -- to bring her death into the realm of politics.  In a short video posted to Twitter, Trump used the murder of Tibbetts to advance his immigration policies, including the long-touted construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico: pic.twitter.com/wYCNmkkaNR pic.twitter.com/wYCNmkkaNR  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018 August 22, 2018  The politicization of Tibbetts' death continued in the days following the arrest of Rivera, whom authorities in Iowa say led them to her remains and has confessed to the murder. On 23 August, the right-wing junk news Facebook page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that "liberals" had started a GoFundMe campaign to collectively raise $5,000,000 for Rivera's bail. It contained what was presented as a screenshot from the GoFundMe website, along with the introductory message: "Liberals raising the bail money for a murder [sic] just #WalkAway." meme "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" added: "Is this for real? Are Democrats raising money for this [piece of shit]?"   #WalkAway is an online campaign which purports to represent individuals who have left the Democratic party, supposedly in dismay at left-wing policies and vehement criticism or disparagement of President Donald Trump. A Twitter tracking tool called Hamilton68, which is run by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, has found that Russian bot networks have boosted the spread of the #WalkAway hashtag.  campaign Russian bot networks The meme was also promoted in several widely-shared tweets, including one posted by the self-described "investigative journalist" Laura Loomer, who has a track record of fabricating and perpetuating conspiracy theories: tweets track record Soooooooo@jihadwatchRS cant have a @gofundme for his journalism, but #MollieTibbettss illegal immigrant murderer can? ? @jihadwatchRS @gofundme #MollieTibbetts We need a very powerful lawyer of group of lawyers to sue these tech companies for violation of public accommodation laws. This is absolutely absurd. pic.twitter.com/dnEOoQcGNv pic.twitter.com/dnEOoQcGNv  Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 23, 2018 August 23, 2018  The meme's central claim is false. Nobody (liberal or otherwise) has set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise Rivera's bail (which is, in fact, $5,000,000.) The meme features some sloppy image editing, for example the jarring difference in font between "$117,504" and "of 5,000,000 to make bail."  bail   It also contains mistakes. On the actual GoFundMe website, the feature which shows how much money a campaign has raised always follows the same format: "$9,999 of $99,999 goal," as shown in the example below:   In the GoFundMe mobile app, the same feature is slightly different, always following the format "$9,999 raised of $99,999 goal." Neither the website or app display this meter with a description of the campaign (such as "to make bail") affixed to the end, and they always include dollar signs before every amount (which is not the case in the fake "Cristhian Rivera" meme.) format As well being crudely doctored, the "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" meme does not follow either of these formats, which establishes that it is a fake.  No campaign relating to Cristhian Rivera's bail existed on GoFundMe as of 24 August 2018, as a quick search of the website shows. (Neither did any such campaign exist under "Christian Rivera," as the suspect's name is sometimes misspelled, or "Cristhian Bahena Rivera," his full name.) Furthermore, no such campaign had ever existed. search exist Bahena When a campaign is removed from GoFundMe, it remains discoverable on search engines. For example, in August 2018 GoFundMe deleted a potentially fraudulent campaign purporting to raise funds for medical care for a Trump supporter supposedly attacked with a brick in Arizona. Performing a Google search for the title of the campaign ("Darrell's medical bills") still yields a residual URL for that campaign: campaign     "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" is a hyperpartisan Facebook page which frequently posts misleading or fake content and memes, some of which we have debunked previously.  debunked A separate campaign relating to Rivera (but not mentioning his bail) was launched on 22 August. It, too, used his mugshot but it was titled "Iowa billboard" and aimed to purchase a billboard which would show Rivera's photograph along with the slogan "Vote Democrat: No border. No wall. Just death for you all." campaign Foley, Ryan. "Authorities: Iowa Student Killed by Mexican in US Illegally."
 The Associated Press. 22 August 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Did the #WalkAway Campaign Use Stock Photographs for People It Claimed Left the Democratic Party?"
 Snopes.com. 25 July 2018. O., Caroline. "Pro-Trump and Russian-Linked Twitter Accounts Are Posing as Ex-Democrats In New Astroturfed Movement."
 ArcDigital. 5 July 2018. Palma, Bethania. "Conspiracy Theories Immediately Appear After Santa Fe School Shooting."
 Snopes.com. 18 May 2018. KNXV Phoenix. "Video -- Valley GoFundMe Page Taken Down."
 KNXV/MSN. 23 August 2018. Sampling the local fare is a staple on the menu of any politician worth his salt.For that reason alone, John Kasich is fortunate to be governor of Ohio.Ohio is the brass buckle on the burger belt. It is Ground Beef Zero.It is Mondo Carne.Rivals stake competing claims, but Ohio can credit two brothers from Akron, Charles and Frank Menches, for inventing and naming the hamburger in 1885. Menches Brothers Restaurants still feature the original recipe.The oldest burger chain, White Castle, is headquartered in Columbus, not far from the home of Wendy's in Dublin. The founder of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee' chains came from Upper Sandusky. The Big Boy, a meal in one on a double-deck bun, was created as the first double-decker in California, but Manners' in Cleveland and Frisch's in Cincinnati gave it white sauce perfection, inspiring the Big Mac.And so on.When Kasich took his State of the State address on the road last week to Lima, he made a stop that followed the lead of other visitors and then tweeted about it: Enjoyed a quick Kewpee burger before the State of the State in Lima tonight.The Ohio Republican Party tweeted its own comment: Kewpie burgers are delicious. An Ohio institution. And they'll cost less thanks to John Kasich's tax cut.Is that true -- or  a whopper? PolitiFact Ohio dug in with relish.First, we will stipulate that Kewpee burgers are delicious and worthy of the restaurant's slogan: Hamburger pickle on top! Makes your heart go flippity flop!We agree that the diner is an Ohio institution, even though @ohiogop misspelled its name. One of the oldest burger chains in the country, Kewpee was started in Michigan (Wendys founder Dave Thomas once said that the Kewpee near his home in Michigan inspired him to go into the business) but has its headquarters in Lima. Its downtown location is on the National Register of Historic Places.Kasich's tax cut cited by @ohiogop is the sales tax plan that is part of the governor's proposed two-year budget. To help pay for a 20 percent cut in the state's income tax, the plan would cut the state sales tax rate, from 5.5 percent to 5 percent, while widening its scope to nearly all service purchases.Restaurant meals -- such as Kasich's pre-speech Kewpee burger -- are covered by the sales tax. Take-out meals are not taxed, and would not be under Kasich's proposal.In Allen County, where Lima is located, state and county taxes combine for a 6.5 percent sales tax rate, the Ohio Department of Taxation told us. Under Kasich's plan, the rate would drop to 5.8 percent.That would cut the tax on a plain Kewpee burger -- priced at $1.80 each -- from 12 cents to 10 cents, according to the tax collection schedule posted by the Department of Taxation.So what's the take-away?It is accurate to say that a delicious burger eaten at the iconic Kewpee in Lima would cost 2 cents less under Kasich's tax proposal, leaving all other factors unchanged. Someone eating two burgers a week would save enough in 10 months to buy another burger.The price of take-out burgers would remain the same, however. Thats an important clarification that gives the statement a rating of Mostly True. In late summer 2019, multiple news accounts reported that a Wisconsin woman had endured a frightening encounter with a supermarket product tamperer who, the articles said, had added hair remover to a bottle of conditioner, causing the woman's hair to fall out. On Aug. 1, the website Distractify published an article under the headline "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair," reporting that: article Taffy Jo Trimm [sic] and her daughter Ashley Rose recently bought this bottle of Pantene from a Walmart in New Richmond, Wisconsin. In a now-viral Facebook post, Taffy explains that the bottle must have been tampered with. Someone must have mixed in Nair or some other hair removal product with the conditioner because, when Taffy's daughter Ashley used the conditioner, her hair started falling out. In clumps. How horrifying is that? 'Attention New Richmond Wisconsin Walmart shoppers,' Taffy's Facebook post reads, "be aware of shampoo and conditioner you buy there as my daughter Ashley Rose bought some two days ago and someone mixed Nair in her conditioner bottle!!!! As I speak she is losing hair and crying!! Conditioner below this conditioner [sic] is supposed to be white. It is an ugly pink color." Other reports went beyond the parameters of that single purported incident, claiming without evidence that it was part of a broader trend. The websites Popbuzz and Rare.us both published articles using headlines that stated "People are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo," while one Twitter user posted a viral tweet that claimed "people" were mixing Nair into shampoo and conditioner bottles: Popbuzz Rare.us tweet Please check your hair products before you buy them, people are mixing Nair into shampoo & conditioner in the store smh pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL pic.twitter.com/iCuDpZLpmL  ???? ??????? (@shandiditbetter) July 30, 2019 July 30, 2019   We have been unable to verify the claim that the woman in question lost her hair involuntarily as a result of exposure to a substance deliberately added to a bottle of hair conditioner before she purchased it from Walmart. The details follow. The narrative began on July 28, when Taffy Jo Timm wrote on Facebook that her daughter, 21-year-old Ashley Robinson, was "losing her hair and crying" after using conditioner she had purchased two days earlier from the Walmart in New Richmond. Timm's post was accompanied by a photograph of a bottle of Pantene conditioner and a photograph showing what appeared to be black hair deposited in a shower:  Later that night, Robinson herself posted the same photograph of black hair, along with a brief account of what had happened earlier that evening: account "... Got in shower, shampoo [sic] and conditioned my hair, got out, something was different and didnt smell the greatest. I carried on sat down for a bit and then decided to go blow dry my hair, I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible, got back in the shower used my other shampoo and rubbed that in, as I took my hands out of my hair it was covered in hair and just kept on falling out." Robinson said she visited the emergency room due to a burning sensation and was later discharged. The following evening, she wrote on Facebook that she had undergone a "consultation" but had resigned herself to having to shave her head. On July 30, Robinson posted a photograph of herself bald, and on Aug. 1, Minneapolis television station WCCO interviewed her: wrote photograph  On Aug. 1, the New Richmond Police Department announced they had opened an investigation into potential product tampering after having received a formal complaint about Robinson's experience. Their news release on the subject stated that: news release Due to the significance of this offense, New Richmond officers and detectives have been working with Wal-Mart staff to identify potential suspects and review video surveillance. The New Richmond Police Department will continue to follow the facts of this case. While this appears to be an isolated case at this time, the New Richmond Police Department is asking anyone in this area that has been a recent victim of this type of activity to please report it immediately to your local police/sheriffs department. The New Richmond Police Department is also reminding people to be diligent in checking products for safety seals and prior to any use to make sure it is consistent with the product you are expecting. We have so far been unable to independently verify that Ashley Robinson's hair loss was involuntary and came about as the result of her using conditioner tainted with Nair (or some other hair-removal product, or any other substance) following an act of product tampering at the Walmart in New Richmond. If or when we receive evidence that would verify that sequence of events, we will update this article accordingly. We do know that Robinson experienced hair loss, and that she did indeed visit the emergency room at Westfields Hospital and Clinic in New Richmond on July 28, 2019. Her mother provided Snopes with a photograph of part of Robinson's after-visit summary. We have redacted certain personal details, but the doctor's summary clearly establishes that Robinson had experienced hair loss and suffered chemical burns on her scalp: "If [she] develops further burning sensation please ... re-rinse her hair. You can follow up in your clinic regarding hair regrowth. Based on the appearance of her scalp, that will likely grow back normally. However, follow-up may be necessary if you're [sic] hair is not coming in as expected." The doctor listed the diagnosis as: "Chemical burn of scalp, unspecified corrosion degree, initial encounter."   However, beyond this documentation, we have found no evidence that corroborates the claim that Robinson's conditioner was deliberately contaminated with hair-removal cream by a third party. Furthermore, we have discovered certain details that subtract, rather than add, support to that theory. Dispute over dates First, significant confusion exists over when Robinson actually purchased the conditioner that she believes caused her hair loss. In her original Facebook post, Timm said her daughter had bought it from Walmart around two days earlier, which would be July 26. However, Timm later told Snopes that Robinson bought it on July 23. And in its Aug. 1 news report, WCCO said she Robinson bought it on the same day as her hair began to fall out, July 28. When we asked Timm to clear up those discrepancies, she insisted that her daughter had indeed purchased the conditioner on July 23 and said she had asked WCCO to correct its reporting. However, a spokesperson for Walmart told us that a team of employees had extensively reviewed video surveillance footage from the company's New Richmond location and found evidence that a customer who appeared to be Robinson had, in fact, purchased what appeared to be similar conditioner two weeks before the onset of her hair loss, not five days before it. Walmart found no evidence of Robinson's purchasing conditioner there at any other time in the ensuing two weeks. Walmart also reviewed footage of the same aisle from before Robinson's visit and saw no evidence of an individual's tampering with shampoo or conditioner bottles. We again put this discrepancy to Timm, who told us she could not explain it and said she had been told by her daughter that July 23 was the date on which her daughter bought the conditioner in question. We also asked Robinson about this discrepancy, checking whether it was possible she had misremembered either the date of the purchase or the location of the Walmart. She told us she was certain she made the purchase at the New Richmond Walmart and was "almost positive" she did so on July 23. Robinson also told us that July 28 was the first time she had used the conditioner, meaning it would have been sitting unused in her home for either five days (by her account), or around two weeks (based on Walmart's surveillance footage). We asked Robinson whether any possibility existed that a visitor to her home during that time might have contaminated the conditioner before she first used it, and she told us she had not had any visitors during that time. The smell test Furthermore, Walmart's review of the surveillance footage found evidence that the customer who resembled Robinson had unscrewed the pump-top cap from several bottles of conditioner, smelling each item before settling on one for purchase. This is potentially a significant finding. Robinson, in her July 28 Facebook post, asserted that she quickly realized something had gone awry in washing her hair because she could detect the odor of another substance in her conditioner ("something was different and didnt smell the greatest," "I took my hair out of the towel and it smelt terrible"). asserted If the conditioner did contain a contaminant (whether hair removal cream or some other substance) which smelled strongly enough at the time that it struck Robinson as "terrible," it stands to reason that she would have detected it in the first place if she were "sniff-testing" conditioners in Walmart before she chose the one she purchased. We put this question to Robinson, who claimed that she had opened bottles of shampoo when she visited the store, but not bottles of conditioner. In a statement, Walmart told us they had "inspected all products in our store, reviewed surveillance footage and found no evidence of tampering." The company removed no products from its shelves, despite Robinson and Timm's claims of product-tampering, and according to their statement, Walmart employees have "attempted to reach out to the customer to discuss this further and have received no response." Robinson told us she had not yet contacted Walmart because she was waiting to meet with her attorney. Two different colors Significant difference appears to exist between the look of the hair shown deposited in the shower in Robinson's original July 28 photographs, and that of the hair shown in photographs posted later. The hair in the photograph below appears to be black in color, and some strands look to be relatively long:  By contrast, Robinson later posted three photographs of herself on Facebook, which appeared to show her with brown or even blonde hair, apparently shorter than the black hair shown deposited in the shower. Timm told us that these photographs had been taken in the hospital on July 28. This means that, according to Timm and Robinson's version of events, her hair appeared black when she washed it on the evening on July 28, but had significantly lightened in color within a matter of hours:  Timm also sent us a fourth photograph, which she said was taken on the day after the event. It even more clearly illustrated the change in apparent hair color that, according to the two women's account, took place:  Courtesy of Taffy Jo Timm.  We put those discrepancies to Timm, who told us that her daughter had dyed her hair and speculated that whatever substance was purportedly added to the conditioner removed the dye from her hair, as well as removing portions of the hair itself: "I feel whatever was put into [the] conditioner stripped the hair color and removed big clumps of hair." Robinson told us she had dyed her hair dark brown two months earlier, but her roots sometimes appeared "medium brown" and "even a little blonder-looking." The hair shown in the shower appeared darker than it really was, she told us, because it was wet. And the hair shown in the subsequent Facebook photographs appeared lighter than it really was due to the effect of the camera's light. Robinson later posted to Facebook a photograph of herself with dyed hair, which she said was taken the day before her hair loss began, and various photographs on her Facebook account demonstrated that she did indeed periodically dye her hair. posted We haven't been able to verify that any substance was added to Robinson's conditioner in the first place, or that the conditioner was the cause of her hair loss, placing doubt on Timm's hypothesis that a contaminant added to the conditioner removed the dye from her daughter's hair and led to a significant difference in hair color across the photographs. Furthermore, the difference between the apparent color of the hair in the first photograph and its appearance in the other four remains significant enough that, while we are by no means dismissing it, Robinson's explanation remains open to reasonable doubt. Finally, other elements are absent that would add credibility to the "Walmart tampering" account of Robinson's hair loss. For example, New Richmond police Chief Craig Yehlik told us that his department had received no other recent reports of product tampering of any kind in the New Richmond area. This absence of reports of similar incidents does not destroy the credibility of Timm and Robinson's version of events, but neither does it enhance it. Although not definitive, Walmart's internal investigation into many hours of surveillance footage yielded no evidence of product tampering at its New Richmond store, but it did reveal evidence that cast doubt on Timm and Robinson's version of events. It is noteworthy that the company has decided not to withdraw any items from sale at that store, despite widely publicized allegations that product-tampering took place there. Zlotnick, Robin. "Woman Loses Hair After Buying Tampered-With Conditioner That Was Mixed With Nair."
 Distractify. 1 August 2019. Duribe, Jazmin. "People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles and WTF."
 PopBuzz. 1 August 2019. Jasso, Silke. "Warning! People Are Putting Hair Removal Cream in Shampoo Bottles."
 Rare.us. 30 July 2019. Yehlik, Craig. "Press Release -- Product Tampering."
 New Richmond Police/Facebook. 1 August 2019. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. On Oct. 17, 2023, an account on X (formerly Twitter) posted a screenshot of what it alleged was an Aug. 19, 2023, headline about the Ukrainian government legalizing the production of pornography to help fund its military during the country's war with Russia: posted  Snopes was unable identify any website with this alleged headline, but it closely matched the framing of a story that published that same day (Aug. 19) on the Russian state-backed media outlet RT: any website a story  That story by RT referenced a real legislative proposal by a member of Ukraine's parliamentary body, Yaroslav Zhelezniak, to decriminalize pornography in the country. However, that measure is an attempt by supporters to limit the state's control over consensual sexual activity  not an effort to raise money for the country's military. Nowhere in the legislation is military funding mentioned, and it does not spell out how the proposed changes to the porn industry would drive more money for Ukrainian's armed forces. Like many former Soviet Bloc countries, pornography is entirely illegal in Ukraine. In August 2023, however, Zhelezniak introduced the proposal titled (via Google translate), "Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine on Ensuring Freedom from Interference in a Person's Private Life," to remove some restrictions on the production of porn, specifically. As described by the Kyiv Independent, an English-language news outlet in Ukraine: described Producing and distributing pornography is currently illegal in Ukraine. Broad interpretations of the law mean that even sharing a nude photograph with a partner can land a person in jail. In 2023 already, 699 cases have been opened over the distribution, sale, and production of pornography, not including cases of child pornography. In one case in July, a court in Poltava Oblast fined a woman almost $1,000 for sending two videos to her boyfriend. Meanwhile, in Sumy Oblast, a man was [sentenced] to three years in prison with one year of probation for sending intimate photos and videos via a dating website Lawmakers and advocates say this has to change. In their view, the decades-old prohibition of pornography harms ordinary citizens by going after them for consensual sexual content, wasting state resources in the process. Zhelezniak argued current Ukrainian law prohibits the production and distribution of material that many Ukrainians already produce or engage with. He said he believes the law should do more to prevent people from sharing nude photos without consent by including additional legal penalties, and protect individual adult content creators against abuse by law enforcement authorities by removing other legal penalties. Supporters say the current legal climate allows authorities to coerce people who produce adult content or perform on webcams. As Zhelezniak explained to the Kyiv Post in August 2023: explained One of the problems of the current legislation is that law enforcement officers, namely cyber police officers, correspond with users of pornographic platforms  for example, those that strip for clients on webcams. They pretend to be customers and then offer them cover for a price, [Zhelezniak] said. The proposal would add explicit protections against victims of revenge porn, reaffirm the illegality of child pornography and "extreme" pornography, and remove criminal penalties for the production and distribution of legal porn. The proposed legislation was in committee, as of this writing. proposal was in committee Nowhere in the draft law was military funding mentioned. An explanatory note attached to the bill, however, pointed out  in an apparent attempt to highlight the current system's alleged flaws  the Ukrainian government spends money to prosecute models on the adult content creation platform OnlyFans using tax revenue it receives from the same site. In 2021, Ukraine implemented a so-called Google tax that levels a 20% tax on foreign corporations that provide services in Ukraine. That tax applies to London-based OnlyFans, despite the fact that, in some cases, it's hosting content that is technically illegal in the country. The explanatory note mentions that surpluses in the government's annual budget generally go toward the Ukrainian military. It is plausible such a law could provide funding to the armed forces, but that was not its intent. explanatory note Google tax Additionally, the explanatory note argues the government spends significant resources investigating and prosecuting cases against models generating revenue for OnlyFans and, by extension, Ukraine, as described in the Kyiv Independent:  described OnlyFans, one of the worlds largest platforms for erotic content, has already generated more than Hr 34 million ($920,000) in tax revenue to Ukraines state budget from value-added tax in the first six months of the year, Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, who has been spearheading the latest effort to legalize porn, told the Kyiv Independent. It's stupid to collect taxes for that and say it's criminal at the same time, Zhelezniak said. If we decriminalize porn, it means less corruption and more taxes for the budget. The explanatory note also referenced an organization that allows Ukrainians to donate erotic photos to people who provide evidence of a donation to the armed forces of Ukraine  TerOnlyfans. That group is independent of the Ukrainian government. It was referenced only in the draft law's explanatory note, nowhere in the actual legislation. That section (via Google translate) read: TerOnlyfans Adult pornography is widely available in Ukraine and most of its aspects [do] not cause public disturbance. On the contrary, such an approach usually causes positive public reaction and media coverage. For almost one and a half years of existence of the TerOnlyfans platform, volunteers [...] collected about UAH 31.5 million in donations for the Armed Forces of Ukraine for erotic photo cards. Quotes from TerOnlyfans Executive Director Anastasia Kuchmenko were included in most news stories about the draft law, and that media focus seemingly contributed to the spread of false claims that the proposal to decriminalize the production of porn was connected to military funding. In reality, however, while the bill indeed proposed lighter restrictions on porn production, it did not call for the government to use revenue from that proposed change on its armed forces. For that reason, we rated this claim  from My Body, My Business: Ukrainian Lawmakers Move to Legalize Pornography. The Kyiv Independent, 7 Sept. 2023, https://kyivindependent.com/my-body-my-business-ukrainian-lawmakers-move-to-legalize-porn/. Teronlyfans - nudity for donations to Ukraine | 1 donation - 1 nude photo. , https://teronlyfans.com/english/. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023. Ukrainian Parliament Poised to Legalize Porn Production. RT International, https://www.rt.com/russia/581488-ukraine-bill-legalize-porn/. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023. Zakharchenko, Kateryna. Porn Is Illegal in Ukraine But That Might Be About to Change. Get the Latest Ukraine News Today - KyivPost, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/20650. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.   - . https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/42525. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.                      . 9623, 18 Aug. 2023, https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/pubFile/1930314. 2        Google | Think Brave. https://biz.ligazakon.net//news/204612_2-lipnya-nabuv-chinnost-zakon-pro-podatok-na-google. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023. In January 2018, shortly after the publication of the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which suggested that President Trump was unfit for office, the President took to Twitter to defend his mental stability: ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  Trump's tweets sparked a flurry of political punditry (and fodder for comedians). On 8 January 2018, the Facebook page "Politicked" published an image purportedly showing former presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton mocking Trump's claim that he became President of the United States on his first try: published   Politicked describes itself as a "left wing political satire" group, which creates its own "original and biting memes." The images of these purported tweets are fake. We searched the Twitter timelines for Obama, Bush, and Clinton and didn't find any of these messages. It's also unlikely that the three former presidents posted and subsequently deleted the tweets. Messages sent from President Obama and Clinton are routinely retweeted thousands of times (Bush hasn't used the service since 2010) yet we found no retweets linking back to the original messages.  Obama Bush Clinton Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely for these three former presidents to coordinate a social media joke simply to mock President Trump, before getting cold feed and deleting their posts without being detected by a mainstream media source.  It is true that Obama, Clinton, and Bush all won presidential elections on their first attempts. Trump's claim that he won the presidency on his first try, however, is a matter of debate (and of how serious one considers his first attempt). He ran for the nomination of the Reform Party in 2000 and appeared on the primary ballot in two states. Trump withdrew from the race before the election. 2000 states Although the 2000 campaign was the only time Trump actually entered any primary races prior to 2016, the real estate mogul toyed with the idea so often that his political aspirations found their way onto the popular cartoon show The Simpsons.  toyed aspirations Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017. TV Guide.  "Here's a Timeline of Every Time Donald Trump Ran for President."
  18 July 2015. Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017. Does Arizona have a law limiting the number of dildos a person can have in their home? That rumor has been bouncing around blogs, books, and websites for decades. In December 2018, a Twitter user  renewed interest in this suspiciously strange piece of legislation: renewed   This restriction is not actually codified in Arizona law. But it almost was. Arizona State Rep. Leslie Johnson (R-Mesa) attempted to pass an obscenity law in the 1980s aimed at regulating pornography and banning the sale of dildos. House Bill 2613, which was later dubbed the "dildo bill," would have made the commercial sale of "obscene devices," such as dildos, a felony. The first news report we could find covering the bill was published in the Arizona Daily Star in December 1987:   The original proposal focused only on the sale of "obscene devices" and not their ownership. Alan Sears, the lawyer who drafted the bill for Johnson, said that ownership of such devices was less important as women didn't like using them anyway. However, a provision of the proposed bill stated that ownership of six or more dildos would be considered proof of intent to sell them commercially -- which would have made such ownership a felony. dildos While the bill faced some ridicule from members of the public (some Arizonans reportedly sported bumper stickers reading, "When dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos"), it was eventually passed by both the House and Senate. Ultimately, however, Gov. Rose Mofford vetoed the measure. ridicule passed vetoed Dildo ownership, however, was not at the center of Mofford's decision to veto the bill. The then-Arizona governor's action was based more on the term "obscenity," how it was defined, and how it would be enforced: In her veto message, Mofford said she fully supports the enforcement of tough laws to eliminate obscene material, but "I must regretfully use my veto power, primarily because I believe the bill is unconstitutional." The anti-pornography bill  also known as the "dildo bill" because it would have banned the commercial sale of sexual devices  would have allowed juries to decide what books and movies are obscene by using a standard of community acceptance rather than community tolerance. Moffard said she believes that the acceptance standard could allow higher courts to overturn convictions, so "persons who would otherwise have been convicted under the tolerance standard would go free." She said she also feared that the acceptance standard  a tougher standard than used in several U.S. Supreme Court obscenity decisions  could allow the removal from library shelves and movie theaters of works that are widely recognized as fine literature or works of art. Johnson, who insisted that dildos were used solely to abuse children, filed similar legislation the following year. When the Arizona House amended some of the language in the bill, replacing the word "dildo" with "child molestation devices," Johnson killed the legislation: insisted amended killed The Arizona Legislature disposed of a couple of controversial bills. Rep. Leslie Whiting Johnson, best known for changing hats and hairdos daily, prematurely withdrew her dildo bill after her fellow representatives had amended it to her dissatisfaction. As originally crafted, the bill would have made it a felony to possess more than five sexual devices. That caused Rep. Bobby Raymond, D-Phoenix, to ask: "Which one of my hands will I have to cut off?" The story behind Johnson's obscenity law was eventually boiled down to a factually inaccurate sentence published on the website Dumblaws circa 1999. From there, it spread to a number of listicles concerning "obscure laws" in the United States. Perhaps most famously, photographer Olivia Locher created a visual representation of this rumor in her 2017 book I Fought the Law: Dumblaws listicles obscure laws book   Despite the widespread prevalence of the rumor, no law on the books in Arizona prohibits the number of dildos a person can own. The rumor stemmed from a failed piece of 1989 legislation dubbed the "dildo bill" which, among other things, would have made it a felony to sell sex toys. The "ownership" aspect of the rumor was due to language in the bill stating that owning more than six (not two) dildos would have constituted proof of intent to distribute. The Phoenix New Times reported on the legislation (and several other fabled Arizona statutes) in 2013 and asserted that Arizonans "can have dildos stacked to the rafters" without fear of legal repercussions. reported Carson, Susan.  "Mofford Vetoes Bills on AIDS, Peep Shows, Mountain Bell."
  Arizona Daily Star.  9 July 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Panel Chairman Kills Anti-Porn Bill Amid Protests."
  Arizona Daily Star.  22 March 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Approves AIDS, Porn Bills."
  Arizona Daily Star.  25 June 1988. Bass, Jonathan.  "House OKS Bills on Child Abuse, Jail Fires, Insurance Firms' Books."
  Arizona Daily Star.  15 March 1989. Pires, Kevin.  "Arizonas Two-Dildo Policy and Other Photos of Obscure Laws You Might Be Breaking."
  Flavorwire.  11 November 2013. Locher, Olivia.  I Fought the Law: Photographs by Olivia Locher of the Strangest Laws from Each of the 50 States.
  Chronicle Books, 2017.  ISBN 1452156956. Hendley, Matthew.  "10 Arizona 'Dumb Laws' That Are Complete Horse S**t."
  Phoenix New Times.  11 September 2013. On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following: violent events Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville #Charlottesville  Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017 August 12, 2017  In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama.  That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words. criticism spoof items posted Shortly after the 12 August 2017 statement referenced above was posted to the First Lady's Twitter feed, another image began circulating online positing that Melania Trump had likewise taken those words (without credit) from a comment made by former First Lady Michelle Obama over a year earlier:  Although we can't yet absolutely rule out the possibility that Mrs. Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, we have found no record of her having done so (on 16 April 2016 or any other day) and suspect that this image is just a spoof of the earlier convention speech controversy.