Is Khizr Khan a Muslim Brotherhood Agent?
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.
The next presidential election may still be two and a half years away, but the presumptive Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is all over the news. On May 16, 2014, in a speech at the New America Foundation, a moderate-to-liberal think tank, Clinton compared the United States and Canada on several measures of well-being. Clinton found the United States wanting. Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States, Clinton said. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Well set aside the claim about the safety net, since thats tricky to measure statistically. But the other claims are ripe for a closer look. So well take them in order. (Clintons camp did not respond to our inquiry.) Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States This is the trickiest of the measurements Clinton mentioned, for a couple reasons. First, theres no universally recognized definition of middle class in the available data. Second, theres more than one way to measure the data. Some measurements take a nations economic output as a whole and divide it by the population, whereas others sample individual people or households to find out how much they make, then find the midpoint. Clinton has support fromNew York Timesarticlethat looked at data from the Luxembourg Income Study database, which is based on surveys going back 35 years. The study surveyed people in various countries, asked them what they earned, then used a median to determine the mid-range income level. TheNew York Timesconcluded that median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then, due to studies conducted by other groups since 2010 suggest that pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States. On the other hand, if you look at gross domestic product per capita --  the total amount of economic activity divided by population -- the United States tops Canada, and not by a trivial amount. In 2012, GDP per capita in theUnited Stateswas $51,689, compared to $41,559 forCanada, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (These figures, as with all other money figures in this article, have been converted to U.S. dollars, so that they can be compared.) But this method has drawbacks. Because it represents an average across the entire economy, the final results tend to over-represent the income that flows to the wealthy. So its not ideal for measuring the middle class. Munroe Eagles, director of Canadian studies at the State University of New York-Buffalo, and Ross Burkhart, co-director of the Canadian Studies Program at Boise State University, told PolitiFact that using the Luxembourg Income Study is at least as good a measurement for Clintons claim as the other figures, if not better. They are working fewer hours for more pay than Americans OECD data for the average number of hours worked annually per employed person shows that Clinton is correct. In theUnited Statesin 2012, workers spent 1,790 hours per year on the job, compared to 1,710 hours per year inCanada. One could say that Americans are working harder and producing more goods and services, but Clintons point was that Canadians have greater opportunities for leisure, and on that point, the statistics support her point. As for getting more pay, OECD statistics for 2012 show that the average annual wages for workers in Canada were $58,376, compared to $55,048 in the United States. This measures the average wages earned by a full-time, full-year employee. These statistics support Clintons claim. Canadians are living longer OECD data for life expectancy at birth shows that in 2011,Canadianscould expect to live 81 years, while in 2009, the most recent year available,Americanscould expect to live 78.7 years. So Clintons right on this one, too. Theres less income inequality in Canada The primary statistic used for gauging income inequality is the Ginicoefficient. Gini coefficients range from 0, or perfect equality, to 1, or perfect inequality. According to the OECD, the Gini coefficient for Canada in 2010 was .320, compared to .380 in the United States. That means Canada is modestly more equal than the United States is, which is what Clinton had claimed. Overall, the five comparisons Clinton made are reasonable and arent cherry-picked or subject to statistical quirks, Burkhart said. It's fair, in my understanding of the Canadian and U.S. economies, for Ms. Clinton to make the kinds of comparisons that Ms. Clinton has made, Burkhart said. Our ruling Clinton said that Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay,  living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Shes indisputably correct on four of these five measures, and the data is more mixed on the fifth. On balance, we rate her claim Mostly True. Here's a glimpse into a particularly brazen attempt at producing "clickbait" by making a huge claim about a beloved celebrity with an attraction-grabbing headline that is literally unrelated to the story underneath. A 17 November 2017 post on the web site ConservativeSociety.net bore a headline that featured a quote misattributed to actress Jennifer Aniston: "Me and All The Trump Supporter Celebrities Decide To Make A Company Named 'Celebrities For Trump,' Which Fight Against All Anti Trump Celebrities, I Think President Trump Needs Our Support."The idea, presumably, was that viewers would distribute the post online based solely on their reaction to the headline rather than the underlying story  because that story does not include Aniston's fabricated "quote," and no interview, no publication, nor any other proof of her interest in this subject is offered.To boot, this piece of clickbait appeared to be a mishmash of off-topic information and wholesale reproduction of another site's work.Instead of a reported story, the story under the headline opened seemingly in the middle of a recap of a December 2016 Saturday Night Live sketch concerning the president and a 16-year-old supporter, Pete Davidson.Four paragraphs later, the story turned into a "report" on a rumored collaboration between Aniston and singer Sheryl Crow on a clothing line. But this text was taken, verbatim, from a 26 October 2017 report published on the gossip site GossipCop.com.A Gossip Cop spokesperson told us they first encountered the story on another questionable web site, DailyNewPosts.com, in October 2017:The word-for-word use of our story, which is clearly unrelated to Donald Trump, is a clear example of willful copyright infringement. We plan to seek all legal remedies and demand the site remove our material immediately.Conservative Society's "story" lists DailyNewPosts.com as its source; however, the latter web site's version of the piece is no longer available.  A 17 November 2017 post on the web site ConservativeSociety.net bore a headline that featured a quote misattributed to actress Jennifer Aniston: "Me and All The Trump Supporter Celebrities Decide To Make A Company Named 'Celebrities For Trump,' Which Fight Against All Anti Trump Celebrities, I Think President Trump Needs Our Support."   The idea, presumably, was that viewers would distribute the post online based solely on their reaction to the headline rather than the underlying story  because that story does not include Aniston's fabricated "quote," and no interview, no publication, nor any other proof of her interest in this subject is offered. To boot, this piece of clickbait appeared to be a mishmash of off-topic information and wholesale reproduction of another site's work. Instead of a reported story, the story under the headline opened seemingly in the middle of a recap of a December 2016 Saturday Night Live sketch concerning the president and a 16-year-old supporter, Pete Davidson. sketch Four paragraphs later, the story turned into a "report" on a rumored collaboration between Aniston and singer Sheryl Crow on a clothing line. But this text was taken, verbatim, from a 26 October 2017 report published on the gossip site GossipCop.com. report A Gossip Cop spokesperson told us they first encountered the story on another questionable web site, DailyNewPosts.com, in October 2017: The word-for-word use of our story, which is clearly unrelated to Donald Trump, is a clear example of willful copyright infringement. We plan to seek all legal remedies and demand the site remove our material immediately. Conservative Society's "story" lists DailyNewPosts.com as its source; however, the latter web site's version of the piece is no longer available. Evans, Greg.  "'SNL' Pokes at Donald Trump's CNN Tweets  And Gives Shout-Out to Real-Life High School Supporter."
  Deadline.  3 December 2016. Weiss, Shari.  "Jennifer Aniston Launching HSN Clothing Collection?"
  GossipCop.  26 October 2017. When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted   survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented. In herBack To Workcampaign ad, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, one of four Democrats running for governor, stated that her former venture capital firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was partner. She made the same claim while campaigning for treasurer in the 2010 election. (Raimondo left the firm the day she took office; her investments there are held in a blind trust. The company has been relocated to Boston.) The ad shows Raimondo atNabsys, a biomedical company in Providence. Before I was State Treasurer, my Rhode Island business helped create over 1,000 jobs, including here at Nabsys, a biomedical company, Raimondo said. As governor, Ill use this as a model for how we create manufacturing jobs. Ill bring colleges and industry together to develop new products in marine science, green technology, and medical devices, and to train our workers to fill those jobs  We need to get Rhode Islanders back to work. This week, Raimondo reiterated that claimin a new TV adabout how she helped bring back Narragansett Beer, originally brewed in Rhode Island until the brewery closed for good in 1983. (I helped create over a thousand jobs, from high tech to making beer ) Before we get started,lets be clear about one thing. Venture capital firms such as Point Judith are not in the business of creating jobs. Their mission is to make money for their investors -- and themselves. They do so by raising money from entities such as private investors and public pension funds, and then investing it in startup companies, hoping for a big return if those companies take off. If the companies succeed and grow, they add jobs. But thats not the goal of the venture capitalists. To support her claim, Raimondo sent us a list of 21 companies that Point Judith Capital invested in and how many jobs those investments -- and the companys efforts -- helped create during the time she was a partner. They add up to 1,063. The list was produced by Point Judith Capital in late 2010, in preparation for her run for treasurer. We also interviewed Raimondo. She described Point Judith Capitals role as an early-stage investor. Typically, you sit on the board of the company, provide a lot of hand-holding and strategic advice, you help recruit people, and get the bank loan. Its hands-on. Thats why we say helped create those jobs. We had to have invested money in the company, which means we had an ownership stake in the company  In every case we either had a board seat and additionally were just very involved in building the business, writing the business plan, helping to get customers. Raimondo said, In these cases, we invested millions of dollars. Initially she said that was more than two million in each of those companies. On Wednesday, Raimondo campaign manager Eric Hyers said Raimondo had misspoke. The investments were all at least six figures; they ranged from roughly $400,000 to $2 million or more. Raimondo noted that many of the companies have expanded and added jobs since then. Next, we attempted to callall 21 companies. Many were from out of state. Some had been bought out, and we were unable to reach the principals who worked there when Point Judith Capital was involved. At least one appears to have since closed. Of the representatives of seven companies we reached, all essentially confirmed Raimondos claims, representing roughly 480 jobs. In one case, the job number appeared to fall slightly short; in another, a CEO gave Raimondo credit for more than the number of jobs she cited. We spoke with Mark Hellendrung, president ofNarragansett Brewing Co. The company is based in Providence. Hellendrung said the beer is now brewed in Rochester, N.Y., Pawcatuck, Conn., Westport, Mass. Test batches have been brewed locally in Rhode Island. Raimondo claimed Point Judith helped create 10 jobs there, and invested more than $1 million. Hellendrung confirmed that Point Judith Capital helped launch the company (which put the famous Narragansett lager beer back on the shelves) with slightly less than $2 million venture capital nine years ago, and active involvement. Weve got over 10 full-time people, and routinely weve got over 20 part-time people that work promotions and events  Its been a labor of love and a ton of fun and Gina was very helpful in that process, Hellendrung said. We spoke with Michael ONeil Jr., founder and CEO ofGetWellNetwork, a health care technology company headquartered in Maryland. Raimondo claimed Point Judith Capital helped create 121 jobs there. Shes totally correct, ONeil said. Gina and I met just as the company was getting started. Her leadership helped us get off the ground and helped get hundreds of jobs. Those included software engineers and project managers; others were on the services side, ONeil said. Donna Dooley,chief financial officer at MedOptions, said that the 185 jobs that Raimondo credits Point Judith Capital with helping to create sounds accurate. Dooley joined MedOptions in 2011, the year after Raimondo left Point Judith Capital, and by then it was about 250 employees, she said. MedOptions provides behavioral health services in southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic. I know that Point Judith Capital and another investment company put money in  I do think its fair to say that there was a fair amount of job creation at that time, Dooley said. Steven J. Tallarida, cofounder of the former Spirus Medical, said Raimondo probably sold herself short by listing nine as the number of jobs Point Judith Capital helped create at that medical device company. It was probably around 20, Tallarida said in a phone interview. Those included research and development, manufacturing and sales jobs. Point Judith Capital invested a couple of million. Raimondo sat on the board, and she would give governance on how to do things, Tallarida said. (The Massachusetts-based company was sold in 2011 to the Tokyo-based Olympus Corp.) Genevieve Thiers,who cofoundedSittercity, wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital put in $2.5 million and led our Series A round. Due to them and the other $2.5 million  we were able to grow from 20 employees to about 80. (Raimondo credited her former company with helping to create 80 jobs at Sittercity, a nationwide babysitter-matching website). Thiers added, That money did not start the company but it was needed for a pivotal stage in growth. Thiers has since left the company but remains on the board. Dr. Barrett Bready,Nabsyscofounder and CEO, said in an email that Point Judith Capital was the first venture capital firm to invest in the company, and the firm has continued to invest in subsequent financing rounds. Raimondo formerly held a board seat. Nabsys currently has 40 employees: the number Raimondo credits her former company with helping to create. Bob Lentz, founder of the former PermissionTV, in Waltham, Mass., wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital was actively involved. Raimondo said her firm helped create 40 jobs there. Lentz wrote, Its been a few years but the numbers sound right. (PermissionTV has been relaunched as VisibleGains). Our ruling: Gina Raimondo said her former firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was a partner there. She produced a list of 21 companies and a precise number of jobs. We reached representatives of seven companies -- most of them cofounders and/or CEOs. They confirmed that Point Judith capital invested several million dollars - give or take - in each case; held board positions and as such, helped create jobs. The jobs numbers added to roughly 480 at those companies. While we were unable to reach all the companies Raimondo listed, the responses from the companies we did reach supported her qualified claim that Point Judith helped create 1,000 jobs. We rate Raimondos claim True. (If you have a claim you'd like us to check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walkers proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. For UW-Madison its a major issue, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015Wisconsin Eye interview. Its penny wise and pound foolish there. Barca added: The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and theyre leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. Lets remember that the cut thats happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didnt hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end. Well test Vos claim soon. For now, lets examine Barcas statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to apage on the UW-Madison websitethat answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-17 budget -- at least from the UW Systems perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin. So theres Barcas close to a quarter million figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in theuniversitys Data Digest. The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So theres a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the universitys ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, thats the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the Data Digest, told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. Theres another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There areother factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but theres one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barcas statement Mostly True. Claim:  Vending machines in Japan offer for sale panties purportedly worn by schoolgirls.   . Origins:  Used underwear that has supposedly been previously worn by schoolgirls is being offered for sale in vending machines in Japan. Though we don't know the current price for such items, in 1993 they sold for the equivalent of US $50 apiece. We'd read that this practice ended in 1993 and reported as much in the original of this article (which was penned in 2001), but since that time numerous readers living in Japan have written to say that not only haven't the machines gone away, but that they've themselves seen them. Japan is home to a thriving bura-sera industry    of which traffic in the soiled panties of schoolgirls represents only one part  with "bura-sera" or "buru-sera" the term for a specific male fascination relating to that country's schoolgirls. "Buru" is anglicized Japanese (Japlish) for "bloomers" and "sera" for "sailor"; the term refers to the sailor suit, the predominant style of girls' junior and high school uniforms. Dozens, if not hundreds, of magazines are exclusively devoted to bura-sera photographs, pictures that feature girls clad in school garb, holding up their skirts to display their panties. Usually in such photos the girls' faces are hidden, but that is not always the case. Girlish youth and innocence are considered sexy in Japan, a culture with a long history of regarding women more as sex toys than as people. This obsession with untouched adolescence results in the sad sight of women in their thirties emitting girlish giggles and clutching teddy bears in an effort to maintain their appeal to the opposite sex. Although it can fairly be said Western society also prizes youth in a woman, there the fascination has to do more with the looks of a girl than it does with her immaturity and presumed sexual innocence. A pretty 26-year-old who would be considered lovely in the West would in Japan be viewed by many as hopelessly long in the tooth. Western society looks for firm, youthful bodies housing the attitudes of grown women  we like them young, but we don't like them to act young. In the West, a teen's sex appeal is dependent upon her ability to look and act much older, thus the fascination with makeup and plunging necklines, accoutrements that make her appear less of a child and more of a woman. In Japan, this ideal is reversed  sexy in the Land of the Rising Sun adds up to childlike behavior and modes of dress that express this ideal. Sometimes this amounts to the adoption of clothing styles highly reminiscent of high school uniforms, but even when a girl dons an evening gown, she will strive to look like a kinderling caught parading in Mom's finery. Likewise, childish outbursts, pouting, and tantrums are viewed as charmingly erotic because such actions work to further the violated schoolgirl image.  In a sexual culture so dominated by roricon (Japlish for "Lolita complex"), buru-sera fetishism finds its footing. Those whose way of life has taught them to lust for young girls find outlet for their interest through viewing suggestive photos of teen girls and handling items previously worn by them.  For a price, girls supplying buru-sera items for resale will don a new pair of panties at a porn shop in the morning on their way to school, then change back into their own underwear at the end of the day at the same shop, leaving its proprietor with a saleable item. Girls can also turn a profit on their own used undies by offloading them to the same people.  Generally,  the more worn the item, the higher the price it will fetch.  Porn shops featuring buru-sera items also vend girls' used school uniforms.   There is no guarantee that all the panties marketed as having been worn by schoolgirls actually have been. Such details are not  scrupulously vetted; no regulatory body checks to ensure the veracity of claims made about these items.  However, it is clear that at least some of the used undies do come from teen girls, thus this "underwear of a Japanese schoolgirl" story is no myth. Japan has a tradition of vending through machines what Western society would view as unusual consumables. In addition to the many items one would typically expect to find offered for sale in this manner, porn magazines, disposable cameras, new pantyhose, horoscopes, and many other goods are routinely mechanically vended. Part of the appeal of such machines is attributable to a matter of convenience, but concern for privacy also fuels the mania. There is less chance of embarrassment in buying condoms from a machine than from a store where the sale must be rung up and bagged by a clerk. Likewise, purchases of "pink" videos (what in the West are termed "blue movies") are less likely to be blush-producing experiences when these transactions can be effected without anyone else's looking on. There was thus a waiting market for "schoolgirl panties" machines, in that those looking to obtain such items would not have to brave a bura-sera shop to fulfill their desires. These mechanical points of sale appeared in 1993 in Chiba City (Chiba Prefecture), in an area known for its porn magazine and adult video vending machines. Almost immediately, an outcry was raised against them, but there was a problem in getting them removed: Whereas sellers required licenses to distribute other types of goods, no such requirement was on the books for soiled underwear, because no one had foreseen the possibility of trade in such an item. These machines existed outside the law in the sense that no specific statute existed that could be invoked to combat them.  The solution was as creative as it is odd-sounding  the machines were countered by invoking the Antique Dealings Law, a statute which stipulates that an antique dealer or a dealer in second-hand items must obtain permission from local authorities. Lacking those permissions, the items could not be vended. In September 1993, three businessmen were charged with selling used panties without a permit under the provenance of this law.  This supposedly ended the presence of such salespoints in that country, but like we said at the top of this piece, countless readers have since written to tell us that the machines can still be found. Barbara "vend me your rears" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Teenage Sex and Buru-Sera Shops  Last updated:  8 July 2007    Sources:   Annells, Jonathan.  "Hot Pants, Hot Customers and Hot Prices."   South China Morning Post.  12 September 1993  (p. 4).    The Daily Yomiuri.  "Dealers of Used Female Underwear Charged."   21 September 1993  (p. 2).    Mainichi Daily News.  "'Bura-Sera' Vending Machines Stir Local Concern."   12 September 1993.    Tokyo Business Today.  "The Next Fad: Vending Machines for Panty Perverts."   November 1993  (p. 64). Since at least 2010, a picture of a newspaper headline has been shared on websites and social media. The headline read, "Missippi's [sic] literacy program shows improvement," which referred to the state of Mississippi. The most recent social media post we found was from Oct. 18, 2021. most recent social media post   This story might bring to mind Jay Leno's old "Headlines" segment from his late-night show. The weekly bit involved displaying funny newspaper clippings for laughs. We didn't find the misspelled headline in any of the Leno clips that were available on YouTube. segment According to the picture, the article below the headline came from The Associated Press (AP). However, was the headline also written by the AP? This was what we sought to find out. For readers who may not be familiar with what the AP does, stories from the wire service are republished on websites and printed in newspapers across the world, including right here on Snopes.com. including right here on Snopes.com The following words were also visible in the body of the story: "... and his late wife, Sally, put up $100 million of their own money to improve ..." This bit of text helped in the effort to track down when the body of the article was first published. We searched newspaper archives on the handy website Newspapers.com for the words from the body of the story. The earliest date we landed on was June 12, 2005. It was credited to Associated Press journalist Emily Wagster Pettus and printed in The Greenwood Commonwealth, a newspaper in the state of Mississippi. However, it had a different headline: "Barksdale Reading Institute getting results in schools." Newspapers.com printed Following June 12, we found that the same story was printed with different headlines in quite a few newspapers. The most common headline we saw was: "Mogul's literacy investment paying off in poverty-stricken Mississippi schools." We found no newspaper that misspelled the word Mississippi as "Missippi." Further, we found it slightly odd that, according to Google's search results, the headline picture didn't find its way on the internet until five years later in 2010. It's possible that a small newspaper that has not yet made available its archives to Newspapers.com accidentally printed the misspelled headline. It's also possible that the headline was printed as slang, something that has been written about the word "Missippi" before, since some residents in the state pronounce it that way. The picture could also have been doctored by someone looking to make a joke. has been written about One Reddit user provided an interesting possible explanation of why the headline was spelled the way it was, although it could be considered to be a stretch: "They just shortened Mississippi because there are only two columns. "Missippi" is just the phonetic spelling for how they pronounce it down there." provided an interesting possible explanation The "Missippi's literacy program" headline picture has been reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Reddit over the years, perhaps as a way to make light of the state's national education ranking. One of the posts from June 2019 received more than 34,500 points and hundreds of comments. For readers unfamiliar with how significant this is, it meant that the photograph was one of the top submissions on the day that it was posted. a seemingly endless number of times ranking received Quite a few Reddit users assumed the apparent error came from the AP, commenting: "Why would Mississippi be responsible for the AP's inability to spell Mississippi?" We found many more instances where the AP was blamed for spelling it as "Missippi." A search for "Missippi" on Reddit showed lots of reposts with comments that placed blame on the AP. many more instances showed We found no evidence to support the claim that the AP messed up and misspelled Mississippi as "Missippi" in the headline about literacy. After contacting the AP, they confirmed that they did not write the headline. It's not uncommon for newspapers to alter the headlines for stories from wire companies. That may have been what happened here. Sources On Oct. 25, the rating for this claim was updated from "Research In Progress" to  We found no evidence that the AP wrote the "Missippi" headline. Further, the AP confirmed that it did not come from them. It's not uncommon for newspapers to change the headlines for stories from wire companies. Anad unveiled Oct. 15, 2010, by Democrat Jack Conway so angered his opponent for a Kentucky Senate seat, Republican Rand Paul, that Paulrefused to shake handsafter a debate two days later.The primary reason for the bad blood was the charge in Conway's ad that Paul, as a college student at Baylor University, had participated in some unorthodox activities, according to an account inGQ.Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax' -- that was banned from mocking Christianity and Christ? said the ad's narrator. Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was 'Aqua Buddha? 'The ad provoked outrage in the Paul camp, and even some liberal commentators protested.The New Republic'sJonathan Chait called itthe ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year for coming perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office, an idea that Chait called a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.Because the most salacious details of theGQstory were provided by a woman who requested anonymity, we're not going to attempt to fact-check that part of the story. But the ad does contain two policy-focused claims. We'll turn our focus on those instead.After the reference to the Aqua Buddha story, the ad asks, Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?We thought we'd take a look.The Paul campaign did not return a telephone inquiry, so we reviewed the sources cited in the ad.To back up the first claim -- that Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives -- the ad citedthe June 20, 2008, edition of a public-affairs television showcalledKentuckyTonight. Paul was one of four guests invited to join an hour-long discussion of the Kentucky state budget.At one point -- it's about 70 percent of the way through the video -- the conversation turns to state budget cuts and the intersection of church-related charity work with state support for social services. Paul offers a note of caution.You mentioned faith-based intermingling -- government and faith-based, Paul said. George (W.) Bush did that, and I think it was a horrible mistake. One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is, and it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn't have tax money flowing into churches. We should let churches do charity work, and that's wonderful, but they shouldn't be corrupted with government money.This seems to be a pretty clear statement of Paul's views on the subject. The only potential complication we see with the ad's wording is that Paul's statement onKentuckyTonightwas focused on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It's possible to envision a partnership between the federal government and a religious group that doesn't involve money, but we think it's reasonable to assume that most would. So the ad's claim seems pretty accurate to us.On the second point -- that Paul would end the deduction for religious charities -- the ad cites an Associated Press account. The AP actually ran a half-dozen stories beginning on Oct. 12, 2010, that addressed Paul's support for a national sales tax. The tale gets a bit complicated, so bear with us.On Oct. 12, the AP quoted Paul saying, The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us. The story attributed the quote to a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign. TheFair Taxwould eliminatethe federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Eliminating the federal income tax would also eliminate deductions such as tax deductions for donations to religious charities. Bills proposing to make that change, which have come up annually for years in Congress, have all failed to progress to a full hearing. Nonetheless, Democrats have used the Fair Tax as the basis for many ads against Republicans this year, one of which we recently ratedHalf True.One day later, Paul began to walk back the comment. The AP reported that Paul, a limited-government advocate, said he supports a 'simpler tax code' but wouldn't offer specifics about his written comments to an anti-tax group supporting repeal of the 16th Amendment that created the federal income tax. 'I haven't really been saying anything like that,' Paul told reporters following a speech in Henderson as part of his Kentucky bus tour. 'I think it's probably better to go ... with what I'm saying on the campaign trail. 'On Oct. 14, theOwensboro Messenger-Inquirerinterviewed Paul before a rally. Paul told the paper that he is for tax reform in general but hasn't committed to the Fair Tax. I'd like to flatten the income tax, Paul said. The church doesn't ask for more than 10 percent of your income.On Oct. 15, Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, told the AP that a tax reform activist -- former Paul campaign manager David Adams -- had distributed the statement that was the basis for the original AP story, and in so doing, distorted Paul's views on the Fair Tax. Our campaign respects the Fair Taxation movement, but the Kentucky coordinator got a little overzealous promoting his cause and created a statement that does not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's views, Benton said in a statement to the AP. Rand knows our tax code is broken and will fight for fundamental reform that both simplifies the system and reduces the financial burden for all Kentuckians. Dr. Paul will study and consider all plans that attempt to do so.The Oct. 15 AP story noted that Adams had said he distributed the statement only after receiving permission from Benton and that Benton had personally verified the statement to the AP for its initial story.Finally, on Oct. 16, the AP reported the existence of a video from a campaign event in February in which Paul told Americans for Fair Taxation volunteer Terry Schmitt, I'm in favor of any change in the tax code that reduces the overall tax burden. That would include the Fair Tax, changing to a sales tax. One great advantage of it would be no more IRS, no more income tax, no more reams of paper that we all have to deal with.This series of explanations suggests that Paul is backtracking to avoid being associated with a policy proposal that could be unpopular among some voters. But even if he does seem ambivalent, we think there's enough evidence to justify the Conway camp's claim that Paul did support the Fair Tax, at least at one point. That said, we think the Conway ad is somewhat misleading in its description of Paul's views. We don't see evidence that Paul made the religious-charity exemption a target of his opposition. His opposition, such as it was, would have been part of his support for a broader, fundamental tax overhaul. So we think Conway's decision to focus on this narrow aspect of the Fair Tax is misleading.All told, then, Conway is close to accurate on both claims but with a slight exaggeration on the question of religious tax exemptions. Keeping in mind that we're not rating the Aqua Buddha portion of the ad, we rate the two policy statements Mostly True. In December 2020, Twitter users enjoyed what appeared to be a delightfully weird coincidence when the author of an article debunking claims about alien life emerged as "Hugh Mann."  In a widely shared Dec. 14 tweet, @mmastrac included a screenshot of the article headlined, "There is No Secret Underground Base on Mars," along with the author's name highlighted in red. @mmastrac added the caption, "Nice try aliens": tweet     The screenshot was not digitally manipulated or faked and showed part of an article that appeared on the website Slate earlier in December 2020. However, the article itself was clearly intended to be humorous. All in all, the piece presented the author as an alien clumsily emphasizing their thoroughgoing "humanness" while desperately, and ineffectively, attempting to cover up evidence of alien life and operating under a blatantly fake pseudonym that sounds exactly like "human": Slate Like all humans, my light-sensing organs nearly popped out of their orbits when I heard that a retired Israeli military commander had given an interview claiming that space aliens made contact with Earths leaders years ago. According to Haim Eshed, who served as the head of Israels space security program for three decades, representatives of the Galactic Federation traveled to our solar system to conduct research into the fabric of the universe, and, with the help of a local political faction known as the United States of America, have constructed an underground base on Helios IV, which we humans call Mars. given an interview As a respected human journalist, I think I speak for our entire species of only-recently-sentient bipeds when I say, Thats ridiculous! Haim Esheds carbon-based neurological organ is simply malfunctioning as he nears the end of his pitifully short biological life cycle, and there is absolutely no reason to look into his story any further. The joke may have been obvious to many readers and Twitter users, but the screenshot shared by @mmastrac didn't include the body of the article itself, which would have made it clearer. Even with the benefit of the full text of the piece, some readers appear to have mistaken "Hugh Mann" for a real Slate contributor and responded to the article in earnest. On the website News Break, which republished the Slate article, commenters wrote, "There are numerous people who claim this that have served in the military just saying"; "Your [sic] a fucking reporter with no knowledge past the end of your pencil! its [sic] ignorant morons like you that keep the truth in the shadows"; and "This reporter is a [sic] asshat." republished wrote