Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action
Claim:  The BATF plans to ban "green tip" ammunition due to an executive order issued by President Obama. : : The BATF has proposed a reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from "primarily used for sporting purposes" to"armor piercing ammunition."     : President Obama initiated the proposed reclassification, or codified it through executive order.  Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] Obama just bypassed congress to ban .223 ammo.   Obama illegal executive order to ban AR-15 ammo on March 16th. All Patriots, speak out for 2nd Amendment Rights HERE   Backdoor #Obama# #executive #ammo ban on ar15 in partnership with the #ATF. obviously don't take #oath seriously    @SpeakerBoehner Third Gun Control Exec Order This Year.Of course Congress will just sit on their thumbs and pivot.  Origins:  On 13 February 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) released a document [PDF] that proposed the reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from the category of "primarily used for sporting purposes" to that of "armor piercing ammunition." The 17-page document was titled  PDF "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 'PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)" and uploaded to ATF.gov, in part to enable interested parties to review it and submit comments before 16 March 2015. ATF.gov The proposal cited the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408, known as "LEOPA") and referenced discussions with law enforcement agencies across the country about whether "green tip" ammunition could reasonably be construed an exempt form of sporting ammo under the 1986 guidelines. The publicly available document noted that handguns made to employ the potentially affected ammunition were not available to civilians at the time the exemption was initially granted, and that the ammo type in question did not appear to meet the standard for a sporting purpose exemption:  Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded into SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun. Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a) in both "AR-type" rifles and "AR-type" handguns.  The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machinegun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges. The ATF's proposal was immediately controversial, particularly among gun rights advocates. On 14 February 2015, a guns and ammunition retailer published a blog post titled "Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action": titled It is doubtful that anyone reading this article will truly be surprised that Obama and his cronies in key government posts are trying to once again de facto suppress our Second Amendment rights. They were not able to make it happen through the legislature, but Obama has his phone and his pen. Currently, it seems the President is using both to target gun owners, specifically owners of AR-15s. If you can't outlaw the guns, get rid of the ammunition. The popularity of the AR-15/MSR is the reason it is a target of the Obama administration. The latest assault on the Second Amendment came after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) unexpectedly announced on Friday the 13th that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." Instead of going through the legislative process as intended, President Obama is using his executive authority to once again impose gun control measures. Another blogger published an entry on 19 February 2015 that made similar claims: published President Obama is taking executive action to bypass Congressional authority and the will of the American people. This time the objective is backdoor gun control. Obama is trying to justify the proposal by arguing that the M855 ball, the most widely used .233-caliber round, is "armor-piercing" and cannot be used in handguns, per the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended by Congress in 1986. He is also claiming that the ammunition in the AR-15 and similar rifles puts the lives of police officers at risk. While it's true that the ATF proposed a ban on "green tip" ammunition in February 2015, President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description. The ATF described the proposal as the result of a long-term examination, several years in the making, of whether the ammunition fit the criteria for an exemption for sporting purposes: In light of recent developments in the firearm and ammunition marketplace, ATF sought input from industry, law enforcement organizations, and the general public on the application of the unique "sporting purpose" exemption set forth in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). In November 2012, ATF held four meetings with interested parties representing law enforcement, the firearms and ammunition industries, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, after completion of these meetings, ATF also solicited and accepted comments from the general public through December 31, 2012. All of that input was considered in interpreting the meaning of the statutory language, and developing the framework described below. On 10 March 2015, the ATF released a statement confirming that the reclassification proposal was halted indefinitely due to overwhelming public commentary opposing it: statement Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are "primarily intended for sporting purposes" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework. Last updated:  10 March 2015
In June 2021, a quote ostensibly uttered by famed naturalist David Attenborough about black and red antswas shared around social media.   Attenborough supposedly said: If you collect 100 black ants and 100 fire ants and put them in a glass jar nothing will happen. But if you take the jar, shake it violently and leave it on the table, the ants will start killing each other. Reds believe that black is the enemy, while black believes that red is the enemy, when the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. The same is true in society. Men vs WomenBlack vs WhiteFaith vs ScienceYoungs vs Oldetc... Before we fight each other, we must ask ourselves: Who rocked the jar? While this quote may ring true to some readers, two things need to be considered. First, this quote did not come from Attenborough. And two, we are unaware of any scientific experiment that showed how red and black ants would co-exist in a glass jar until the jar was shaken. Attenborough This viral quote appears to have been inspired by a passage from author Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." "I can't remember what all Frank had fighting in the jar that day, but I can remember other bug fights we staged later on: one stag beetle against a hundred red ants, one centipede against three spiders, red ants against black ants. They won't fight unless you keep shaking the jar. And that's what Frank was doing, shaking, shaking the jar." The earliest iteration that we could find of this viral message comes from an Oct. 3, 2020 Facebook post. That version did not credit Attenborough or provide any links directing to any sort of studies about red and black ants in a jar. Other posts from this time also credited an "unknown" or "anonymous" source. Attenborough's name wasn't attributed to this post until several months later. We have not been able to find any credible sources attributing this quote to Attenborough. And while we have found plenty of videos of Attenborough talking about ants, we have not found anything specifically about red ants and black ants co-existing in a jar until someone shakes it.It is relatively common on social media to see a famous person's name erroneously attached to a quote from a lesser-known or anonymous author. This appears to lend credibility to the writing, which in turn leads to an increase in shares. On Christmas morning of 2020, a recreational vehicle   exploded on the streets of Nashville near a building owned by AT&T that lies one block from the companys office tower.  Shortly afterwards, social media users began circulating variants of a conspiracy theory holding that AT&T had been engaged to undertake a "forensic audit of Dominion voting machines," the latter of which were frequent targets of false election fraud claims made by President Donald Trump and his supports after Trump lost his re-election bid in November 2020: exploded election fraud   The implication of the conspiracy theory was that the explosion had been intended to destroy the machines before they were audited in order to cover up evidence of massive voting fraud. However, both AT&T and Dominion have disclaimed the notion that the former company was engaged in audit of the latter, or that any Dominion-related systems were being moved to Nashville in preparation for a "forensic audit" (by anyone).  No available external evidence suggests AT&T was involved in any such audit, either. As of now, the person of interest identified by the FBI in connection with the explosion, Anthony Quinn Warner, is believed to have been "paranoid about 5G technology" (another frequent subject of conspiracy theories) rather than possessing any election-related motive. Anthony Quinn Warner 5G technology conspiracy theories The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded  and even whether it should exist at all  have been the subject of debate for many decades now: Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] SOCIAL SECURITY:Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month  and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? MY FAVORITE :A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction: Dear Friends:Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them: . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid." FICA It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out: applied . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years: increase 1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum. These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program). . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions: For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.  . . . the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: Annual Report In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated. A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. here . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983. rulings amendments Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself: above altered Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones. In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes. This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic Party. As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. above Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party. Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan. Greenspan Commission Q: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding "Yea" vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat). OBRA vote vote Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! No one  whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien  is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI)  the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican). benefits SSI Additional information:     Riedl, Brian and David John.  "Social Security's Fictitious Trust Fund."   Knight-Ridder Tribune.  10 November 2004. In May 2021, news articles and widely-shared social media posts reported that an Ohio State Senator had been caught driving during an official Zoom video conference, and even used a fake "office" background. Ohio On May 6, Brody Logan, a reporter at the NBC affiliate KSEE in Fresno, California, posted a short video to Twitter, along with the following text: text "This Ohio State Senator thought he was slick, using a Zoom background of his home office while driving... debating a bill for harsher penalties for distracted driving..."      Similarly, Newsweek published an article with the headline "Ohio Senator Uses Zoom Office Background While Driving During Hearing on Distracted Driving Bill." The report went on: Newsweek An Ohio state Republican senator participated in a virtual Zoom meeting regarding distracted driving legislation while using an office background as he drove his vehicle this week. During the 13-minute meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board on Monday, State Senator Andrew Brenner could be seen fiddling with his phone, while also turning his camera on and off as he drove with the office background displayed. Andrew Brenner did drive during the Zoom call, and he did use a fake "office" background. However, the meeting had nothing to do with distracting driving, which was an important component of much of the commentary surrounding the incident, since it provided a significant element of irony. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The incident in question took place during the May 3, 2021 meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board, a body that provides legislative oversight of statewide spending, procurement and investment in Ohio.  body The video can be watched in full on the Ohio Channel website, here.  here When Brenner first appears, he is clearly sitting in a parked car, not wearing a seatbelt:   He disappears from view for a short while, then reappears, this time with his camera zoomed in on his face. Around the 3:30 mark, his background abruptly shifts from his car, to a fake "office":   Brenner then disappears from view again, and when he becomes visible again around one minute later, he can clearly be seen driving the car, with his seatbelt on, and the "office" backdrop still in place:   In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Brenner admitted he was driving during the meeting, but denied being distracted: Columbus Dispatch "I wasn't distracted. I was paying attention to the driving and listening to it (the meeting,)" Brenner said. "I had two meetings that were back to back that were in separate locations. And I've actually been on other calls, numerous calls, while driving. Phone calls for the most part but on video calls, I'm not paying attention to the video. To me, it's like a phone call." On the same day as the Ohio Controlling Board meeting took place, May 3, Republicans in the state house introduced House Bill 283, which would enhance and expand Ohio's existing prohibition against distracted driving and using electronic devices while driving. House Bill 283 However, after watching the full Ohio Controlling Board meeting from that day, as well as checking its agenda, it's clear that none of the participants even mentioned House Bill 283, specifically, or distracted driving more broadly. That particular claim, as made by Newsweek and Logan, was inaccurate.  agenda On 7 December 2016 , a meme appeared on social media that claimed an unnamed "liberal group" sought to tear down a 90-year-old World War I memorial, because they found it offensive: meme   The post contained no information or citation, did not name the "liberal group" involved, the location of the memorial, the date of the purported controversy, and the grounds by which these individuals believed the monument to be offensive. (Nevertheless, the item's share count reached six digits in just two days.) The image was easily identifiable as the Bladensburg, Maryland "Peace Cross" (known simply as the Bladensburg Cross): Bladensburg Known also as Peace Cross. The Snyder-Farmer Post of the American Legion of Hyattsville erected the forty foot cross of cement and marble to recall the forty-nine men of Prince Georges County who died in World War I. The cross was dedicated on July 13, 1925, by the American Legion. A bronze tablet at the base of the monument contains the unforgettable words of Woodrow Wilson: The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves. At the base of the monument are the words, Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion. At its heart, the cross bears a great gold star. A 7 December 2016 Washington Post article reported that years-long litigation over the cross was brought by the American Humanist Association due to the religious nature of the public memorial: reported The high court has allowed some monuments with religious content to stand and rejected others on public sites ... The towering, pink-hued cross honors the 49 Prince Georges County men who died in World War I. The monument was completed in 1925 with funds raised by the American Legion and local families. It sits on land owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a state agency that pays for upkeep and repairs, according to court filings. The appeal was brought by the American Humanist Association after a U.S. District Court judge [in 2015] declined to order that the cross be removed, saying that it is a historically significant secular war memorial. The original complaint [PDF] was filed in February 2015 against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. In the suit's opening lines, the plaintiffs explained the action was not because they found the symbol itself offensive:  PDF This action challenges the constitutionality of the Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of a massive Christian cross (the Bladensburg Cross) as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to Maryland by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under "Causes of Action," the group reiterated its motivation in bringing the suit: The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross amounts to the endorsement and advancement of religion (and, specifically, an endorsement of and affiliation with Christianity) in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross lacks a secular purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendants ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross fosters excessive governmental entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendant acted under color of state law in violating the First Amendment as described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The American Humanist Association said repeatedly that the litigation was about what the group argued was a violation of the Establishment Clause, not a matter of offense. A 26 February 2014 article in The Humanist further explained the suit: Establishment Clause explained At the core of the First Amendments Establishment Clause is the principle that the government must not favor or prefer some religions over others, or religion over non-religion. No matter how small the preference may seem to some, particularly to adherents of the favored religion, the framers of the Constitution believed that The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent. When the government erects an exclusively Christian monument on government property, it violates this central command of the Establishment Clause by sending a clear message that Christianity is the preferred religion over all others. When the religious monument is dedicated to fallen soldiers, it sends an even more egregious message that only Christian soldiers are worth memorializing. Non-Christian soldiers such as atheists and humanists are inherently excluded. Such is the case with a cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, commonly known as the Peace Cross, which stands forty-feet high on a government-owned median between roadways. In addition to the obvious sectarian nature of the Latin cross, the Bladensburg cross was also erected with religious motives ... In seeking the removal of the Bladensburg cross, the American Humanist Association seeks only to eliminate this stigmatic message to non-adherents of Christianity. It urges the government to erect an inclusive monument that will honor all fallen soldiers, regardless of their faith. On 30 November 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported that a federal court in Maryland ruled the Bladensburg cross was constitutional, a decision that prompted the December 2016 appeal: reported The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled [in November 2015] that even though the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial, a 40-foot-tall monument erected in 1925, takes the shape of a cross, its purpose is not primarily religious. Therefore, the court found, it does not violate the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Social media users were riled once again about the controversy after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, prompting a Fox News opinion column by Todd Starnes on 18 October 2017: column In 2014, the American Humanist Association -- a group that believes in "being good without a god" -- filed a lawsuit alleging the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed ... On [17 October 2017], the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled the historic memorial must be torn down -- all because the Bladensburg Memorial is in the shape of a cross.   [...] I warned Americans in my new book, The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again, that the war against religious liberty and traditional American values is far from over. A militant group of atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers want to eradicate Christianity in the public marketplace. The only way to stop this evil scourge is for people of faith to stand together and fight back in the courts. Starnes did not mention that the American Humanist Association's "[urged] the government to erect an inclusive monument that will honor all fallen soldiers, regardless of their faith" or that the cross was on public land. The Baltimore Sun reported: reported A federal appeals court ruled that a 40-foot, cross-shaped war memorial that has stood on public land in Maryland for nearly a century is unconstitutional because it excessively entangles the government with religion ... The 2-1 ruling reverses a 2015 district court decision that found the purpose of the cross is not primarily religious and that the site has been used almost exclusively for celebrating federal holidays. Supporters of the memorial have raised the impact an adverse decision could have on other sites  notably, Arlington National Cemetery. Crosses are common on headstones and elsewhere at the cemetery. A 24-foot granite cross, the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, is positioned near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The court dismissed the notion that the two sites are related. The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here, the court wrote. And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing in dissent, questioned the legal significance of the crosss size. In the majoritys view, the memorial is unconstitutional based predominantly on the size of the cross, and neither its secular features nor history could overcome the presumption, Gregory wrote. But such a conclusion is contrary to our constitutional directive.  Fritze, John.  "Appeals Court Rules That Peace Cross In Bladensburg Violates The Constitution."
  Baltimore Sun.  18 October 2017. Marimow, Anne E.  "Could Moving a Giant Cross or Cutting Off Its Arms Resolve a 1st Amendment Case?"
  The Washington Post.  7 December 2016. Miller, Monica.  "Why We Sued Bladensburg, Md Over a 40-Foot Cross."
  The Humanist.  26 February 2014. Pitts, Jonathan.  "Court Finds Cross Memorial Constitutional."
  Baltimore Sun.  30 November 2016. Starnes, Todd.  "Federal Court Rules World War I Memorial Cross Must Be Torn Down."
  Fox News.  18 October 2017. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  "American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission."
  25 February 2014. The Town of Bladensburg.  "Memorial Cross."
  Accessed 9 December 2016. Updated [19 October 2017]: Added information about a 17 October 2017 reversal of the 2015 decision deeming the preservation of Bladensburg cross constitutionally sound. It's a political fact of life: Incumbency has its perks. You're already in a position of power. Name recognition is not a problem. And, if you're president, your arrival at a venue  whether for campaign reasons or not  is bound to generate headlines. That's the underlying complaint of a tweet presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent out July 5 as his presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, was preparing to join President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina. Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump said. We wondered if it was true that the trip was going to be made at taxpayer expense. To some degree, it is. And that's out of necessity. The president doesn't stop being president just because he's campaigning for himself or someone else. Even if he flew to a campaign stop on a commercial jet, he would need a host of support services and personnel to keep him connected and in charge. And that doesn't include the requirements for security. Thus, the president always uses Air Force One, which is one of two specially designed Boeing 747s built in 1986 to include a command center, a medical suite, bedroom, office, two food preparation galleys, and plenty of room for staff and reporters. It's not cheap to operate. According to CNN, the Air Force was reporting two years ago it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Officeanalysisof three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hourin 2016 dollars. Technically, if the president makes a campaign trip, the campaign or the political party is supposed to reimburse the government for use of the plane to some degree. (The full cost is not reimbursed because some of the costs are directly connected to the responsibilities of being president.) These days,the amountis the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to theWashington Post.Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. When you have someone traveling on behalf of a campaign, such as Clinton and any staffers who might be accompanying her, the accounting can get even more complicated. But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s,according to CNN. The amount is even more complicated when the president mixes business with politics, such as flying somewhere to give a policy speech or performing another official act but also spending time attending a purely political event, such as a fundraiser. (The North Carolina appearance, in contrast, was purely political.) How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is,according to Time magazine. Mark Knoller, the CBS News White House correspondent who has been tracking presidential trips for years, noted in a tweet that presidents have repeatedly told the press that such costs will not be revealed. > Prior administrations also refused, he noted in a followup tweet. But they didn't claim to be most transparent Admins ever. The closest you can get to getting an estimate is to see what the campaigns pay the government. For his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush's campaign paid just under $1 million, according to thePost. But that was when the cost was based on a first-class commercial airline ticket. By 2012, after the rules were changed to be based on chartering a 737, Obama spent just over $3 million. In this case, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said the campaign will cover its portion of the costs, although he indicated those costs had not been determined. The Trump campaign didn't respond to an email, but Trump is well aware that campaigns are required, by federal law, to reimburse for expenses. During his trip to Scotland last month, Trump went to great lengths to repeatedly state that federal law requires his campaign to pay for everything, even if it's the use of a conference room in Trump Towers, which he said he would gladly let his campaign use for free. I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back,he said. If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back. Our ruling Trump said, Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by Obama and Clinton. How people define a fortune is somewhat subjective, and details about how the costs of using the presidential plane are determined are secret. But based on the information available, it's clear that the campaign is only going to be picking up a small fraction of the $200,000-plus hourly costs of using the plane, with taxpayers footing the bill for the rest. Because Trump's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa60cf08-a414-40d2-b91a-70999d4188a2 On July 6, 2019, fans of actor Cameron Boyce were shocked and saddened to learn that the 20-year-old Disney star had passed away after experiencing a seizure. As celebrities and fans mourned the loss of Boyce on social media, a rumor began to circulate that actress Debby Ryan had suffered a heart attack after hearing the news about her former co-star's death: passed away   There was no truth to this unfounded rumor, which was widely disseminated by a viral video posted to YouTube by @Dancetayley and titled "Debby Ryan Rushed to Hospital After Finding Out About Cameron Boyce." The video, which racked up nearly 2 million views within a day of its initial posting, included a number of screenshots of tweets from random people who claimed that Ryan had suffered a heart attack: YouTube   None of those tweets originated with verified sources, however, and no credible news outlets reported that Ryan experienced a heart attack. This rumor likely stemmed from the fact that Ryan's voice was absent from the conversation immediately following Boyce's death. While many other co-stars and celebrity friends posted messages to social media mourning the loss of Boyce after the news of his death broke, Ryan's social media accounts were largely silent. Fans began to wonder why she hadn't commented yet, and some of them started to claim without evidence that she had suffered a heart attack. messages There were, of course, innumerable potential reasons why Ryan didn't immediately post to social media that did not involve a heart attack. For example, she might simply have taken some time to process the news that her co-star had passed away. While Ryan didn't immediately post to social media, she did like a tweet posted by actor Charles Esten, who co-starred with Ryan and Boyce on the show Jessie: tweet   Ryan, who turned off her Instagram comments following Boyce's death (likely because a large number of fans were continuously reminding her that her friend had just died), also posted a video to her Instagram story of Boyces acceptance speech for the Pioneering Spirit award at the 2018 Thirst Gala. Instagram comments posted Instagram story Here's the full video of Boyce's acceptance speech. The portion of his speech included in Ryan's post is transcribed below:  Its crazy, we can tweet whenever we want and we can use social media and Instagram and make the world a better place, instead of a worse one, which so many people use it for... We need to use what we have and make the world a better place for other people, other people, people who need us. BBC News.  "Cameron Boyce: Disney Descendants Star Dies Age 20."
  8 July 2019. McBride, Jessica.  "Debby Ryan Shuts Off Instagram Comments After Cameron Boyces Death."
  Heavy.  8 July 2019 Sager, Jessica.  "Adam Sandler, More Co-Stars Mourn Death of Cameron Boyce."
  Fox News.  7 July 2019 Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). Supporters of a new Multnomah County Library District say a new tax structure is necessary for keeping one of the nations busiest libraries working for all of us. In a mailer, the Libraries Yes! Committee paints an already dim picture of the system.The mailer notes reduced hours and compares them to other metro-area counties: Right now, our libraries are open 44 hours per week, down from 57 hours just a few years ago. Thats the lowest of any library in the four-county region.PolitiFact Oregon was well aware that the system has cut back in certain areas, but it surprised us that the cuts had gone so far as to put operating hours behind Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. We thought a quick check was warranted -- and quick it was.We checked the website for each of the counties libraries and calculated the weekly operating hours for the main branches. Heres what we found.In Multnomah County, the Central Library is open44 hours each week.In Washington County, the Hillsboro Main Library is open64 hours eachweekand the Beaverton City Library is open63 hours.In Clackamas County, the library system is open52 hours a week.And up in Washingtons Clark County, the main Vancouver Community Library is open60 hours a week.We  also called the group responsible for the mailer and asked them about the statement. They sent us a slightly different group of numbers -- the average number of hours a library was open in each county. Their findings supported the same conclusion: Multnomah County library hours are the lowest in the four-county region.We find this statement True. One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017.