Customer Liability for Chipped Card (EMV) Fraud
The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016.
The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on  ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True. After the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021, Snopes readers asked about the legitimacy of a viral document that left-leaning websites framed as an attempt by a member of former President Donald Trump's cabinet to suppress the ability of National Guard forces to provide law enforcement during the gathering of Trump supporters rallying to try to overturn the 2020 election. left-leaning websites 2020 election For example, the Daily Kos, a self-described online hub of progressive media and activism, reported on Jan. 29: online hub [On. Jan. 4], former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo to the secretary of the Army placing some extremely unusual limits on National Guard forces for that event. Its not a to-do list. Its a list of thou shalt nots. A long list. A list that says guard forces cant arrest any of the pro-Trump protesters, or search them, or even touch them. And thats just for starters. [...] Its clear that these restrictions would have absolutely prevented any guard forces from trying to protect any location. A website called "The National Memo" republished the body of the Daily Kos' story verbatim, under a new headline: "Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot." The National Memo Before we directly address the claim, let us unpack the basis of the above-mentioned articles. The Daily Kos' original story included a hyperlink to an authentic tweet by New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater on Jan. 28. tweet   The reporter's tweet included a digital image of what appeared to be a Jan. 4 memo to former Army secretary Ryan McCarthy and signed by Miller  whom Trump appointed as acting Pentagon chief in November 2020, just days after President Joe Biden was announced the winner of the election. Ryan McCarthy November 2020 was announced In early February, we reached out to Broadwater to learn where, how, or under what circumstances he obtained the document. He told us "it was a leak," or that an anonymous person or group within government or law-enforcement released the document to The New York Times. While no evidence exists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document displayed in the tweet, we sought to independently verify its authenticity. Citing the Freedom of Information Act, Snopes submitted multiple requests for a copy of the Jan. 4 record from various record-keeping centers within federal government. Freedom of Information Act On March 3, the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee fulfilled our request after its chair, Sen. Gary Peters, entered Miller's memo into the committee's public database of records. Committee spokespeople emailed us copies the document that indeed imposed restrictions on the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) during planned demonstrations by Trump supporters in the coming days. It read, in part: planned demonstrations Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is so employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel, and you will notify me immediately upon your authorization. The document written by the Trump appointee did not order any person or entity to take away weapons from Guard members. Rather, it required McCarthy, who oversees the DCNG, to request approval from the defense secretary in order for Guard members to use weapons, helmets, body armor or riot control agents  as well as to share equipment with other law-enforcement agencies  during the preplanned gatherings of Trump supporters on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. Rewind a few days, and, according to the Department of Defense, D.C. officials requested that the district's Metropolitan Police department  not a federal agency  lead security efforts during the pro-Trump events, which were widely marketed as gatherings of Trump supporters to try to send a message to Congress to halt a ceremonial vote affirming Biden's win. Department of Defense A Jan. 5 document signed by McCarthy and obtained by Snopes (displayed below) showed the Pentagon ultimately fulfilled that request, saying that its troops would provide support for the district police department or Capitol Hill Police, should they need it. Some 340 Guard members were planning to control crowds at metro stations and enforce street closures during the events, and a "Quick Reaction Force" comprised of 40 Guard officers was standing by, no matter what. "DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions," McCarthy's memo read. "In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self-defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army." https://www.scribd.com/document/497258792/Secretary-of-the-Army-Memorandum#fullscreen=1 That decision by the Department of Defense, as well as the request for autonomy from D.C. officials, followed the Guard's controversial response to protests against police violence following George Floyd's death in summer 2020. Politico reported: George Floyd's death reported: While some of the early protests did include looting and damages to local businesses, [D.C. Mayor Muriel] Bowser never called in the National Guard. Against the mayor's wishes, Trump ordered Guard personnel to the city, where the military faced backlash for using overly aggressive crowd control tactics against peaceful protesters, including flying helicopters low over the city to create rotor wash, an action used in overseas conflicts. Any time we would employ troops and guardsmen in the city, you had to go through a rigorous process. As you recall, there were events in the summer that got a lot of attention, and that was part of this," William J. Walker, the DCNG's commanding general, said in an interview with The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Walker was referring to the guidelines (like those in the Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 memos) that required the highest-level approval for the Guard to fully launch into law-enforcement mode. As a result of such restrictions, Walker told The Washington Post that when he received a panicked phone call from Capitol Hill Police about the extremists preparing to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 (which occurred around 1:50 p.m., per the defense department's timeline) he could not immediately deploy Guard members to help. He instead needed to wait for approval from McCarthy, who then waited for an answer from Miller. The Washington Post department's timeline At 3 p.m, Miller approved full activation of the DCNG (1,100 members) to help district and Capitol Hill police and directed those troops to secure the Capitol, the department's timeline showed. the department's timeline showed (See here for our fact check into a separate claim that the Department of Defense initially denied a request by D.C. officials to deploy the Guard.) here In sum, it was true that Miller issued a Jan. 4 memo requiring Guard leaders to seek prior approval before using weapons during the pro-Trump protests. However, it was an inaccurate portrayal of that order to claim that the Trump appointee "disarmed"  or took weapons away from  Guard members before the demonstrations, like The National Memo alleged. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of false and true information. This report was updated after Snopes obtained a copy of Miller's Jan. 4 memo. The update corroborated the New York Times reporter's tweet and added context about McCarthy's response to D.C. officials' request to lead law-enforcement efforts during the upcoming protests. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill Claim:  In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke out against raising the U.S. government debt limit.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011]   'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'    Origins:  In 2006, while serving his first term as a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made the remarks attributed to him above during discussion in the U.S. Senate prior to the call for votes on raising the debt limit. The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:     The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like    bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans  a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.    But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to thecommonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.    Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.    Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.    The shortened quote now attributed to him is a verbatim capture of the opening and closing paragraphs of his remarks of 16 March 2006. (The Senate vote held later that day on a resolution to increase the debt limitpassed by a 52-48 margin, with Senator Obama voting against it.) passed President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:     Last updated:  7 October 2013    Congressional Record.  "Remarks by Sen. Barack Obama."    16 March 2006.   Farley, Robert.  "Obama Says Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 18 Times; George W. Bush 7 Times."    St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2011.   Stephanopoulos, George.  "President Obama One-on-One."    Good Morning America.  15 April 2011.   Werner, Erica.  "WH: Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit."    Associated Press.  11 April 2011. An unexpected controversy took root after the July 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC) involving key speaker Khizr Khan, who took to the convention stage to speak about Donald Trump, Muslims in America, and the loss of his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan: Captain Humayun Khan   Khan's speech was preceded by brief introductory footage of Hillary Clinton describing his immigration to the United States, and how his son was killed in action in Iraq while guarding his Army unit. Khan reiterated his son's story and challenged Donald Trump (who has at times proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States) to read the U.S. Constitution: Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings ... Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America." If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities: women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [Waved "Pocket Constitution."] In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law." Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. Trump repeatedly issued comments about Khan via Twitter as the Khans were being interviewed about the speech and about Trump's reaction to it: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016 I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016  This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2016 August 1, 2016  On 31 July 2016, the dispute escalated when Trump suggested to ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times' Maureen Dowd that Khan's wife Ghazala was silent during her husband's DNC speech because, as a Muslim female, she was not permitted to speak: Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a nice guy and that he wished him the best of luck. But, he added, If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably  maybe she wasnt allowed to have anything to say, you tell me. Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Id like to hear his wife say something. A day earlier, Mrs. Khan told MSNBC that she was unable to bring herself to speak at the convention due to her ongoing grief over her son's death: Ms. Khan did speak to MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell, saying she cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. When she saw her sons photograph on the screen behind her on the stage in Philadelphia, she said, I couldnt take it. I controlled myself at that time, she said, while choking back tears. It is very hard. On 31 July, Ghazala Khan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post addressing the ongoing controversy. The same day Mrs. Khan's editorial appeared, bloggers Theodore and Walid Shoebat published a lengthy polemic stitching together circumstantial evidence to suggest Khizr Khan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood: editorial Shoebat polemic The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to trump Trumps Muslim immigration policy of limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. But not so fast. Trump we have your back. The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States). With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadans writing is greatly acknowledged." page However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:  The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood." That "recent report" was a Politico article that described the Khan "familys journey from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, and from there to Boston," which in turn referenced Khan's 2005 interview with the Washington Post about the recent loss of his son Humayun. In its original context, the interview revealed a very different picture than the one painted by the Shoebats: article interview [Khan] and his wife would talk often to their three boys about why they decided to come to the United States, he began. It was the 1970s, and Pakistan was under military rule. They came to Silver Spring to have more freedom and opportunity. "It sounds cliche," said Khan, 54, "but that is the story." His son was always reading books about Thomas Jefferson; that part of his passion was certainly his father's doing. When the boys were small, Khan would take them to the Jefferson Memorial. He'd have them stand there and read the chiseled, curving words about swearing hostility against tyrannies over the minds of men ... It was not exactly surprising, he continued, that Humayun quoted Jefferson in his admissions essay for the University of Virginia, a line about freedom requiring vigilance. It was a bit surprising, though, when he signed up for ROTC and told his dad that after graduation in 2000, he wanted to join the Army. "He said that it seems only fair and logical to join the Army," Khan said. "Because he wanted to complete the journey  he felt that ROTC had completed him as a person, and he wanted to give back. That's what he wanted to do." It was logical, Khan said, and how was a lawyer going to argue with logic? Humayun finished his four years of service and was preparing for law school when the Army called him back to duty. As he was moving into Iraq last year, Khan called him and they spoke briefly, a conversation he has turned over in his mind a million times since. His son said, "Remember I wrote that article for admission to U-Va.?" Khan said, pausing, taking the pen cap off and putting it on again, his voice steady. "He said, 'I meant it.' He said that. He wasn't going there through some thoughtless process, or thoughtlessly following orders. He thought he was serving a purpose." Khan recounted the details of his son's death to the paper in 2005, noting that by all accounts his son sent his unit to safety before running towards a suicide bomber: Over time, his colonel and his fellow soldiers told Khan how his son died, and that, too, had some sort of horrible logic to it. Humayun's job at the base in Baqubah was to inspect the soldiers at the gates, where crowds of Iraqis would sometimes gather. Humayun went early that morning, which was just like him. He saw a taxi speeding toward the gates, too fast, he thought. He yelled for everyone to hit the dirt. Then, as was his nature, he went running toward it, they said. "Ten or 15 steps with his hand outstretched," his father said, stretching his own arm out in front of him almost a year later, telling some ghost taxi to stop in a downtown conference room. The explosives detonated before the car could ram the gates or the mess hall nearby, where several hundred soldiers were eating breakfast. The Shoebat page was something of a Gish Gallop, patching together a pile of loosely or unrelated details to paint a picture of a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator in the Army who was killed before he could complete some undescribed subversive mission: Gish Gallop I can go on and on. Is it likely that Khans son was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished? Only another type of investigation will determine that. Do they ever mention how many soldiers have died because of Muslim traitors? Do they ever bring up how many Christians in the US military were killed? Yet the modernists and homosexuals continue to attack Christians. But soon everything we need to know will be uncovered. As we say in the Middle East: the snow always melts and the sh*t under it will soon be revealed. The Shoebats' insinuations about the younger Khan directly conflict with all other published accounts about him. Had Humayun's intent in joining the Army been one of sabotage, there would be no reason to expect he'd ultimately lay down his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing scores of other American soldiers  yet by every telling, that is exactly how Capt. Humayun Khan died. The other big "smoking gun" Shoebat cited to support their theory that Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood operative is his work as an immigration lawyer. By their rationale, Khan bears a grudge against Donald Trump for the candidate's myriad statements about Muslims and immigration  but although it's true that Khizr Khan and his sons were Muslims immigrants to the United States, none of the "evidence" presented by Shoebat remotely supported the idea that Khan is an operative of the Muslim brotherhood. Not only were most of the points made about Khan by Shoebat unrevealing and tenuous, the heroic death of Humayun Khan flies in the face of claims the family were Muslims operatives seeking to harm Americans or work against U.S. interests. Capt. Khan enlisted in the U.S. Army by choice and died protecting his fellow soldiers; by contrast, the only "evidence" linking his family to the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant, decades-old papers written about OPEC and Islamic law by Khizr Khan before he immigrated to America.  Haberman, Maggie and Richard A. Oppel, Jr.  "Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire."
  The New York Times.  30 July 2016. Khan, Ghazala.  "Ghazala Khan: Trump Criticized My Silence. He Knows Nothing About True Sacrifice."
  The Washington Post.  31 July 2016. Khan, Khzir.  "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law."
  Houston Journal of International Law.  1983. McCrummen, Stephanie.  "Khizr Khans Loss: A Grieving Father of a Soldier Struggles to Understand."
  The Washington Post.  22 March 2005. Shoebat, Theodore and Walid Shoebat.  "What The Media Is Not Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump ..."
  Shoebat.  31 July 2016. Timsit, Annabelle.  "Seven Minutes That Shook the Convention."
  Politico.  29 July 2016. Claim:  Photographs show Nick Vujicic, a man born without limbs.   Incomplete. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] ... after reading this young man's story ... I was touched & humbled.     My name is Nick Vujicic and I give God the Glory for how He has used my testimony to touch thousands of hearts around the world! I was born without limbs and doctors have no medical explanation for this birth "defect". As you can imagine, I was faced with many challenges and obstacles. "Consider it pure joy, my Brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds." .... To count our hurt, pain and struggle as nothing but pure joy? As my parents were Christians, and my Dad even a Pastor of our church, they knew that verse very well. However, on the morning of the 4th of December 1982 in Melbourne ( Australia ), the last two words on the minds of my parents was "Praise God!". Their firstborn son had been born without limbs! There were no warnings or time to prepare themselves for it. The doctors were shocked and had no answers at all! There is still no medical reason why this had happened and Nick now has a Brother and Sister who were born just like any other baby. The whole church mourned over my birth and my parents were absolutely devastated. Everyone asked, "if God is a God of Love, then why would God let something this bad happen to not just anyone, but dedicated Christians?" My Dad thought I wouldn't survive for very long, but tests proved that I was a healthy baby boy  just with a few limbs missing.         "And we know that in all things God works for the best for those who love Him." That verse spoke to my heart and convicted me to the point where that I know that  there is no such thing as luck, chance or coincidence that these "bad" things happen in our life. I had complete peace knowing that God won't let anything happen to us in our life unless He has a good purpose for it all. I completely gave my life to Christ at the age of fifteen after reading John 9. Jesus said that the reason the man was born blind was "so that the works of God may be revealed through Him." I truly believed that God would heal me so I could be a great testimony of His Awesome Power. Later on I was given the wisdom to understand that if we pray for something, if it's God's will, it'll happen in His time. If it's not God's will for it to happen, then I know that He has something better. I now see that Glory revealed as He is using me just the way I am and in ways others can't be used. I am now twenty-three years old and have completed a Bachelor of Commerce majoring in Financial Planning and Accounting. I am also a motivational speaker and love to go out and share my story and testimony wherever opportunities become available. I have developed talks to relate to and encourage students through topics that challenge today's teenagers. I am also a speaker in the corporate sector. I have a passion for reaching out to youth and keep myself available for whatever God wants me to do, and wherever He leads, I follow. I have many dreams and goals that I have set to achieve in my life. I want to become the best witness I can be of God's Love and Hope , to become an international inspirational speaker and be used as a vessel in both Christian and non-Christian venues. I want to become financially independent by the age of 25, through real estate investments, to modify a car for me to drive and to be interviewed and share my story on the " Oprah Winfrey Show "! Writing several best-selling books has been one of my dreams and I hope to finish writing my first by the end of the year. It will be called "No Arms, No Legs, No Worries!"        I believe that if you have the desire and passion to do something, and if it's God's will, you will achieve it in good time. As humans, we continually put limits on our selves for no reason at all! What's worse is putting limits on God who can do all things. We put God in a "box". The awesome thing about the Power of God, is that if we want to do something for God, instead of focusing on our capability, concentrate on our availability for we know that it is God through us and we can't do anything without Him. Once we make ourselves available for God's work, guess whose capabilities we rely on? God's!         May the Lord Bless youIn Christ,Nick Vujicic  "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be UNDERSTOOD" Origins:   Research in progress. Last updated:  24 September 2007 In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read:  "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc."   In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly.  article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show.  segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC."
 WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising."
 The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?"
 BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group."
 Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested."
 The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J."
 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79."
 The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup."
 The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea."
 The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist."
 The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case."
 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..."
 Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions."
 Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime."
 Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol."
 The New York Times. 12 May 1988. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice took to Facebook in October to tout gains in his states tourism industry. When I took office, I made tourism a top priority because I knew it had all the potential in the world, Justicewrote in his post. Today I am proud to announce that West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58%! Way to go West Virginia Tourism! The post linked to apress releasethat provided additional detail and cited astudyconducted by  Dean Runyan Associates, an economic consulting firm that has examined the states tourism industry annually since 2000. A year ago, we fact-checked how well Justice described the previous years statistics and rated itMostly True, because Justice glossed over some of the reports negative findings. How about this year? Lets take a look, point by point. (Justices office did not respond to inquiries for this article.) This is accurate. The report found that overall spending on tourism in West Virginia grew from $4.14 billion in 2016 to $4.28 billion in 2017 to $4.55 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 6.5%, easily exceeding the rate of inflation. Spending also grew for the second straight year if you set aside gambling revenue. It rose from $3.48 billion in 2016 to to $3.63 billion in 2017 to $3.91 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 7.5%. This also exceeded the rate of inflation. This is accurate, too. According to the data in the report, the rise over the past two years came after four consecutive annual declines, as this chart shows:  The report also provides data for the national tourism market thats comparable to the West Virginia numbers. According to the report, spending was $980 billion in 2018, a 4.1% increase over 2017. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but neither is the West Virginia figure, so the national and state figures can be compared equitably.) Justices 58% figure appears to come from comparing the most recent one-year increase in West Virginia (6.5%) with the most recent one-year increase nationally (4.1%). The West Virginia percentage increase is 58.5% bigger than the national increase. Justice said, West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58 percent. These numbers align with the findings of a longstanding annual study of the West Virginia and national tourism economies. We rate the statement True. Claim:  Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. :   Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency.     UNDETERMINED: Video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Hey Media, is UPenn pulling the Gruber video where he says ObamaCare passed by Democrats lying to the public a newsworthy event? Just askin'  Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare's architect admitted that lack of transparency/stupidity of electorate helped pass the bill   Origins:  In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conferenceinvolving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place. panel Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below:  During the portion of the video in question, Gruber said: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated  subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in  you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money  it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. After video of the conference was put online, Gruber elaborated on what he meant by his attention-garnering remarks and apologized for them, saying that he "spoke inappropriately": elaborated Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected. "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't  do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." In the video, Gruber appeared to be speaking specifically about the political environment in 2010 and its impact on the law's funding mechanisms. Gruber takes a critical stance on some of those outcomes, calling them "irrational." "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves tradeoffs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." Gruber apologized for his comments during an on-air interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. "The comments in the video were made at an academic conference," Gruber said. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Although Gruber apologized for the language he used, Gruber said that the larger point he was trying to make centered on the political pressures that shaped the law. He added that those pressures "led to an incomplete law with some typos." "It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did in Massachusetts, which would be to just give people money to offset the cost of their health insurance," Gruber said. "That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done through the tax code." The full video of the 2013 Health Economics Conference was published by PennLDI on YouTube, and when the excerpt video of Gruber's remarks began to circulate online, many viewers assumed the comments to be recent (they were not), and others maintained PennLDI then removed the clip from the Internet due to the political controversy. On the latter point, several Twitter users posted screenshots of a YouTube error page that indicated the source video had been (at least briefly) removed by the University after Gruber's remarks became a focus of attention: recent  However, it isn't yet clear whether the PennLDI video was deliberately pulled from the Internet due to the political controversy it created, or whether it was made unavailable at some point after it was initially posted for unrelated reasons (e.g.,  error, copyright issues, technical problems).   It appears the comments made by Gruber entered the stream of social media hot topics when they were spotted and excerpted from the longer PennLDI video by Philadelphia investment adviser Rich Weinstein, then posted to the YouTube channel of the American Commitment 501(c)(4) (i.e., a politically active nonprofit organization), whose Phil Kerpen tweeted: Rich Weinstein American Commitment My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent...  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  The claim that the University of Pennsylvania deliberately tried to scrub the clip from the Internet may also have stemmed from Kerpen or the PAC: Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  Last updated:  12 November 2014 Immigration is a sensitive and touchy issue, and never more so than in the United States during an election year. Thus, when stories started to emerge in 2016 about a group of veterans of the U.S. military living in Mexico after they had been deported from the United States (a story we previously reported on) it seemed natural to question what looked like nothing more than a chunk of political kryptonite. Mexico previously reported However, deported veterans exist, although no one  not even the Department of Homeland Security  knows how many. Their issue has been slowly brought into mainstream American consciousness largely by the efforts of committed activists in Tijuana. exist many "The Bunker," also known as the Deported Veterans Support House, is in a small cinderbrick building tucked away on a side street in Mexico's border town of Tijuana, and is frequented by veterans of every branch of the United States military, who fought everywhere from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Former Army paratrooper Hector Barajas, 39, opened it to be a gathering place and a refuge for veterans who, like him, had been deported: The Bunker deported "I started The Bunker because there was a need," Barajas told us. He said since his deportation, he had been meeting others like him living in Tijuana, and discovered that they lived throughout Mexico  but not just Mexico. There are hundreds of deported military vets living in at least twenty countries, he said. Since then, The Bunker has since become less a refuge and more a cause: Our vision is to end the deportations of Deported Veterans, repatriate the ones who have already been deported, and offer support until they all go home. We shouldn't honor our Deported Veterans by allowing them to return upon death. Honor them by allowing them to return home to their families and give them any benefits that they are eligible for. It may come as a surprise to learn that serving in the United States military does not automatically confer citizenship, but it doesn't. It can smooth the way, provided the aspiring citizen is aware of what they need to do in order to apply for citizenship and gets it done within a certain timeframe. However, it's not uncommon for enlistees to wrongly assume (having never been told otherwise) they have done all they need to do in order to be awarded citizenship, and thus all they have to do after their honorable discharge is wait. citizenship timeframe   Sometimes, too, there are bureaucratic foulups. One man was deported after he was unable to attend a hearing, despite his reason: he was in the hospital receiving surgery at the time. Others do everything the way they're supposed to, filing their paperwork and appearing at their meetings, but still get deported, and no one seems to know exactly why. Once they are outside the U.S., they maintain a legal right to VA benefits such as healthcare, and to whatever funds they might be entitled, but they have no way of getting back into the United States to obtain that assistance, and there are no satellite offices outside the country to help them. VA benefits Because these particular veterans are either in the United States on green cards or without documentation after their discharges, they can be deported with cause, or for no reason at all. Past and present members of the armed forces are supposed to receive special consideration during deportation hearings, but the guidelines are inconsistently applied. consideration However, some of these veterans have spent time in prison for assault or drug offenses, which makes their situation more difficult to parse, at least politically. Elected officials (and candidates) who might ordinarily be in full-throated cry about the importance of military rights tend to go oddly silent when confronted with the spectres of undocumented soldiers. Sympathy for those wounded on the battlefield under the American flag suddenly falters when it turns out they had entered the country without documentation years before. Miguel Perez, a United States Army veteran, falls under that category. The 39-year-old Illinois man, who served two tours in Afghanistan and who has been in the U.S. since he was eight, was convicted of a drug trafficking offense in 2008. The green card holder had served half of a 15-year prison sentence when Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement took him for deportation proceedings. After losing an appeal, Perez was deported in March 2018: deported Perez was flown from Gary, Indiana, to Brownsville, Texas, where officers escorted him across the border and turned him over to Mexican authorities, ICE officials said. Perez appeared shocked by his treatment during his final moments on U.S. soil. An ICE agent who described himself as a fellow veteran told Perez they would "fix this" while leading him to a gate, Perez said. "When we go there he just closed the gate behind me and he said, 'OK, we're done here,'" he said. "He said, 'You see those green lights? You go that way and when you get there just ask for help.'" Perez recalls thinking, "Really? This is it?" The veteran said he immediately contemplated suicide but then said he felt he needed to keep walking and continue the fight to let others know how he and other undocumented veterans are treated by the U.S. Unless something changes for them, the only way most of the deported veterans will be able to return to the United States is by dying. By law, all military veterans (except those who have been dishonorably discharged) are entitled to burial in a national cemetery, and immigration laws don't apply to corpses. entitled apply On 20 April 2016, lawmakers introduced a bill to readmit military veterans who were deported and who were not previously convicted of serious crimes. It would also prevent the removal of military veterans from the U.S. in the future. bill On 13 April 2018, Hector Barajas, the deported veteran who was one of the first to shine a spotlight on their plight, received his American citizenship, potentially paving the way for hundreds of other former United States military members:   Kao, Joanna and Vo, Lam Thuy. "Deported Vets: Life in the Bunker."
Al Jazeera.  26 September 2014. Siegal, Erin. "U.S. Veterans 'Banished' to Mexico."
KPBS.org. 12 November 2012. Tobia, P.J. "They Served Their Country. Now They Can't Live In It."
PBS.org.  10 September 2015. "Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet."
USCIS.gov. Update [13 April 2018, 2:20 P.M.]: Added detail about Hector receiving U.S. citizenship.