Inheritance of a Family Name
We all dream of rich relatives kicking the bucket and leaving us their fortunes, which is why this "unexpected inheritance" scam works as well as it does. My name is Becky J. Harding, I am a senior partner in the firm of Midland Consulting Limited: Private Investigators and Security Consultants. We are conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of HSBC, the International Banking Conglomerate. This investigation involves a client who shares the same surname with you and also the circumstances surrounding investments made by this client at HSBC Republic, the Private Banking arm of HSBC. The HSBC Private Banking client died in testate and nominated no successor in title over the investments made with the bank. The essence of this communication with you is to request you provide us information/comments on any or all of the four issues: 1-Are you aware of any relative/relation who shares your same name whose last known contact address was Brussels Belgium?2-Are you aware of any investment of considerable value made by such a person at the Private Banking Division of HSBC Bank PLC?3-Born on the 1st of october 19414-Can you establish beyond reasonable doubt your eligibility to assume status of successor in title to the deceased? It is pertinent that you inform us ASAP whether or not you are familiar with this personality that we may put an end to this communication with you and our inquiries surrounding this personality. You must appreciate that we are constrained from providing you with more detailed information at this point. Please respond to this mail as soon as possible to afford us the opportunity to close this investigation. Thank you for accommodating our enquiry. Becky J. Harding.For: Midland Consulting Limited.09/02/2004 Imagine being transformed overnight from office drudge to a member of the jet set  it's the stuff of daydreams! (or at least the impetus to buy lottery tickets). Because this urge for the big "something for nothing" runs so deep in us, it makes us vulnerable to the machinations of con men, which is what these e-mailed come-ons areabout.This scam has been part of the grifters' bag of tricks for many a year. It was only a matter of time before it began showing up on the Internet, where those who make their livings by defrauding others have an even easier time vending their cons to the unwary. Though the text quoted above as our example is one of the more common forms this sort of come-on takes in the wilds of cyberspace, the scam can be dressed out any number of ways. How it is worded is far less important than its thrust  its "hook" that you might be entitled to an inheritance you had no reason to expect was coming your way. Although the names change from e-mail to e-mail, the scam itself is immutable: potential victims receive notification they share the surname of a recently deceased person who failed to leave a will. This notification purportedly comes from a representative of a firm of "Private Investigators and Security Consultants," with said representative stating he or she is "conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of[name of large financial entity, such as Barclays or HSBC]." Recipients of those e-mails are then asked three or four questions along the lines of the following: How the about-to-be-scammed answer the questions is unimportant  the queries are there merely to lend a patina of legitimacy to the inquiry. Regardless of whether potential victims respond with the news that none of their relatives have been to Brussels or whether they claim great-uncles whom the family subsequently lost track of after they settled there, the game is now afoot. In either case, they will be assured there is a very real chance significant inheritances are about to come their way, provided one small insignificant detail is first taken care of: payment of a fee to advance the matter. Similar to the Nigerian Scam and the foreign lottery fraud, the promise of untold wealth is used to distract the overly trusting away from the sorry fact that they are being asked to send money. In all three cases, the con works the same way: after being mesmerized by the vision of riches to come, those being taken advantage of are required to open their wallets and whip out their checkbooks to bring about the happy event. Nigerian Scam lottery There is no dead Uncle Fred, no rich deceased Reese. It's all a lie told to part you from your cash. So far we've seen versions of this scam emanating from supposed private investigating firms named Cappa Consultants, Midland Consulting Limited, and De Rosenberg Consulting, but the names the fraud artists choose to adopt for the purpose of parting the unwary from their money are unimportant; it's all a con. The names of genuine banking concerns (such as HSBC and Barclays) are dragged into the fray willy-nilly by the ill-intentioned to make the matter look more credible, but these real entities have nothing to do with the con. Indeed, as one official at HSBC responded to a query about these supposed windfall inheritances: It has come to our attention that a variation on an email is being circulated that has no connection to HSBC Republic. The email claims that HSBC Republic has employed investigators to contact the family of a deceased client who died intestate. To our knowledge such claims have no validity and we strongly recommend that recipients of such emails do not respond to the sender. Regards Web AdministrationHSBC Republic In another form of the scam, folks are contacted through regular mail by "estate locators" who say those receiving their notices are named beneficiaries of unclaimed family inheritances. Recipients are lured into mailing fees for estate reports, which will supposedly explain where their inheritances are located and how they can be claimed. These "estate locators" may also offer to process claims against these estates for a fee. It does occasionally happen someone so contacted does eventually find he or she has a right to claim against the estate of a distant relative who died without leaving a will. But in those cases, the amount garnered generally proves not to have been worth going after (indeed, often less than what was paid to the "locator" for the information). Estates do hire actual "heir locators" to find missing beneficiaries, but those so engaged are paid by the estate, not by the folks they find. There are also heir locators who freelance on a contingency basis, entering into agreements with those they connect with their rightful inheritances for percentages of sums so recovered. While this might sound like the scam being described above it's not  these legitimate heir locators receive payment only after estates are settled and heirs so found have received their bequests. Ergo, if a "locator" is asking you to pay up front, it's a scam. Those still clinging to the hope that there might still be something to their pie-in-the-sky e-mail, that hints at a life of luxury are just in the offing, should pause to consider that professionals in the process of contacting legitimate heirs do so through recognizable law firms, with the contact coming in the form of an actual letter (as opposed to an e-mail) on that firm's letterhead. We find it somewhat amusing that "intestate" (meaning to die without leaving a will) is so often mis-rendered in the e-mails distributed by the defrauders: it either comes out as "in testate" or as "interstate" (which we presume means to die between two highways). What You Can Do: Additional information:  Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Last updated:  27 November 2011   Choney, Suzanne.  "Key Flaws Reveal Truth Behind New E-Mail Hoax."Copley News Service.  7 July 2003. Bangor Daily News.  "Be Wary of Inheritance Notifications."2 February 2004  (p. A5).
Claim:  The AMBER Alert system has been discontinued due to the federal government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, October 2013] Just saw a post on Facebook that is accusing President Obama of discontinuing internet Amber Alerts.  I didn't even know there wasinternet Amber Alerts.  Any truth to this?  Just heard the Amber Alert system has been shut down but MichelleObama's "Lets Move" site is still up. Is this true? Origins:  The AMBER Alert system for fostering widespread dissemination of bulletins about abducted children is coordinated on a nationwide basis by the Office of Justice Programs under the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ).  In the first few days of the federal government shutdown in October 2013, the federal government's AMBER alert web site was replaced by a plain white screen and a message stating that "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this Office of Justice Programs (OJP) website is unavailable": AMBER alert replaced  This circumstance led to rumors that the AMBER Alert system had been shut down, while less vital federal government programs were still active. However, this was not the case.  The DoJ's AMBER Alert web site only provides background information and statistics about the AMBER Alert system; it doesn't create, disseminate, or list the alerts themselves.  AMBER alerts are issued locally, and they are compiled and tracked on the web site of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), which is, and has been, available throughout the federal government shutdown: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children "The Amber Alert system was never interrupted, but to eliminate any confusion, the informational site maintained by the Justice Department has been restored," Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon [said]. The website for the Office of Justice Programs, which hosts Amber Alert information, [was] "shut down" due to funding issues, a senior Justice Department official [said]. The official [said] that the website is informational only, detailing the department's role in providing training to states on how to have an Amber Alert system, and that the alerts themselves were not affected. Amber Alerts are issued jurisdictionally, by county or state, the official said, adding that the Amber Alert system, which consists  largely of press notifications, highways signs, and tweets, is functional and not affected by the shutdown. "The Office of Justice Programs had the funds to run through Friday," October 4, after which it "furloughed all of employees. So since they couldn't staff and monitor those websites, they were put behind a firewall so as to keep from hacking or security issues," said Fallon. If there isn't a Justice Department employee working to monitor the sites, Fallon said, "it's a cyber-security risk for sites to be posted but not maintained or supervised." "We had to bring in a furloughed employee to re-open the site," Fallon said, adding that it's "unclear if we will have the funds to monitor" the site. The decision was made, a senior Justice Department official said, because there was a "public safety worry because of incorrect reporting that the program itself was down," as opposed to just the federal website. NECMEC's web site now bears a notice stating that "The distribution of AMBER Alerts has not been affected by the recent government shutdown."  As of 7 October 2013, the DoJ's AMBER Alert web is also back online. notice Last updated:  7 October 2013 First introduced in Congress in 2001 and last revisited in 2017, the so-called DREAM Act (which stands for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) was aimed at providing a path to permanent residency in the United States for children of undocumented immigrants. Every attempt to pass the legislation has failed to date, as politicians continue to kick the can down the road to the next administration. DREAM Act However, in June 2012, the DREAM Act begat DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), an executive action signed by President Obama that allowed qualified undocumented minors to apply for work permits and protection from deportation. To be eligible, applicants had to be under the age of 31, must have arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, lived in the country continuously since 2007, be enrolled in school or possess the equivalent of a high school diploma, and never been convicted of a serious crime. DACA By the time the Trump administration rescinded the program in September 2017 (on the spurious grounds that it was an abuse of executive power), an estimated 800,000 people  most of them under the age of 25  had applied for DACA protection. In honor of the ill-fated DREAM Act, and to reflect that they have a dream of someday becoming citizens, they have come to be known as "Dreamers." rescinded 800,000 With DACA gone, the Dreamers' future once again rests with Congress. Members of both parties have vowed to pass legislation granting them protections comparable to DACA's, an idea supported by the majority of the American people. Even President Trump backs the effort, having suggested to the New York Times that Dreamers be given a path to citizenship: supported suggested Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they work hard, that gives incentive to do a great job. Whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, I think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of, after a period of years, being able to become a citizen.  A vocal minority opposes that idea, however, and some of its detractors have taken to social media to spread anti-Dreamer (and other anti-immigrant) propaganda. One example making the rounds on Facebook consists of a list of so-called "fun facts" intended to persuade readers that Dreamers are bad people and any government efforts to help them amount to a "scam":   These two groups differ not only in size, but also in attributes such as how well educated their members are and how many have criminal records. This is because DACA imposed strict requirements in those areas. For purposes of this fact check, we're defining "Dreamers" as those who actually enrolled in the DACA program between 2012 and 2017. We've chosen this route for two reasons: one, it has been, to date, the working definition used by major news and polling organizations such as the New York Times, Associated Press, and the Pew Research Center; and two, in the single instance where we determined that the "Dreamers fun facts" meme reported a statistic accurately (the military participation of Dreamers), it pertained (and only makes sense if it pertains) to the group of actual DACA enrollees, not the larger DACA-eligible group. (Barring a change in regulations, non-DACA undocumented immigrants cannot enlist in the military.) Associated Press CLAIM: "792,000 Dreamers (88 percent) are over 25 years old." STATUS: False. Only about 280,000 (35 percent) of the 800,000 Dreamers who were active DACA recipients as of September 2017 were over 25 years old. None are older than 36 because of the age-of-entry requirements imposed by DACA. The average age of Dreamers is 24. [Source: Pew Research Center] Pew Research Center CLAIM: "900 Dreamers (less than 1 percent) serve in our military." STATUS: True.  Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants aren't allowed to join the U.S. military, so this statistic can only apply to DACA enrollees, who were granted special permission to enlist in 2014. granted As of September 2017, there were close to 900 Dreamers serving in the military thanks to that program, according to the Pentagon. That is less than .1 percent of all DACA recipients. For comparison, according to a USA Today report .4 percent of the general population currently serves in the military. [Sources: USA Today; Pew Research Center] USA Today Pew Research Center CLAIM: "743,000 Dreamers (83 percent) do not have a college degree." STATUS: False. In a 2017 survey of approximately 3,000 Dreamers, the portion of those aged 25 or older who said they hold a four-year college degree (or higher) was close to 35 percent. That means 65 percent (approximately 520,000) do not yet have a college degree. Comparing that to the larger U.S. population, 2015 census figures say that roughly 32 percent of Americans 25 or older have a least a four-year college degree (meaning 68 percent do not). [Sources: T. Wong DACA Survey; U.S. Census Bureau] survey T. Wong DACA Survey U.S. Census Bureau CLAIM: "189,000 Dreamers dropped out of high school early (That is roughly 21 percent)." STATUS: False. The only statistic we were able to find comparable to this applied not to Dreamers, but to the larger population of potentially DACA-eligible immigrants. According to a 2014 study, roughly 20 percent of those aged 19 or older had not completed high school or the equivalent (as compared to a 5.9 percent high school dropout rate for the entire U.S. population). We found no such statistic for DACA enrollees, who in any case would have been required under government guidelines to be "currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States." [Sources: Migration Policy Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; National Center for Education Statistics] Migration Policy Institute U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Center for Education Statistics CLAIM: "9,000 Dreamers (1 percent) are incarcerated." STATUS: False We were unable to find any sources documenting the claim that 9,000 Dreamers are (or were) incarcerated. It may be that the 1 percent figure was loosely derived from a Cato Institute policy brief which said that the incarceration rate among the 1.1 to 1.9 million immigrants who were otherwise DACA-eligible in 2015 was .98 percent. (What's most interesting about that figure is that it's actually a lower incarceration rate than that of the native-born population, according to the Cato Institute). brief The closest comparable statistic we found for actual DACA enrollees came from an accounting by USCIS of the number of those whose "deferred action" status was terminated between 2012 and 2017 due to criminal convictions or arrests: 2,030 (or approximately .25 percent of the entire Dreamer population). [Sources: Cato Institute; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Cato Institute CLAIM: "657,000 Dreamers (73 percent) receive some form of welfare." STATUS: False. By law, undocumented immigrants (including DACA recipients) are not eligible for means-tested welfare benefits such as cash assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid. Under a provision of DACA, enrollees who reached retirement age after having worked and paid taxes in the United States for at least 10 years could have qualified for Social Security and Medicare benefits. [Source: National Immigration Law Center] law National Immigration Law Center It is important in policymaking matters to carefully weigh the facts and how populations will be affected. One can only hope that those same legislators do not govern by meme. Bier, David. "Five Myths About DACA."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Broder, Tanya, Moussavian, Avideh, and Blazer Jonathan. "Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs."
National Immigration Law Center. December 2015. Chishti, Muzaffar and Bolter, Jessica. "Trump Administration Rescinds DACA, Fueling Renewed Push in Congress and the Courts to Protect Dreamers."
 Migration Policy Institute. 15 September 2017. Dickerson, Caitlin. "What Is DACA? Who Are the Dreamers? Here Are the Basics."
The New York Times. 23 January 2018. Gonzalez, Roberto, et al. "Taking Giant Leaps Forward."
Center for American Progress. 22 June 2017. Greenwood, Max. "Poll: Nearly 9 in 10 Want DACA Recipients to Stay in U.S."
The Hill. 18 January 2018. Haberman, Maggie, Rogers, Katie, and Shear, Michael. "Trump Says He Is Open to a Path to Citizenship for 'Dreamers.'"
The New York Times. 24 January 2018. Horton, Alex. "The Military Looked to 'Dreamers' to Use Their Vital Skills. Now the U.S. Might Deport Them."
The Washington Post. 7 September 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "The Debate Over DACA: A Guide to the Numbers Used by Politicians."
The Washington Post. 23 January 2018. Korte, Gregory, Gomez, Alan, and Johnson, Kevin. "Trump Administration Struggles With Fate of 900 Dreamers Serving in the Military."
USA Today. 7 September 2017. Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "DACA Has Shielded Nearly 790,000 Young Unauthorized Immigrants From Deportation."
Pew Research Center. 1 September 2017. Landgrave, Michelangelo and Nowraster, Alex. "The Dreamer Incarceration Rate."
Cato Institute. 30 August 2017. Lopez, Gustavo and Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Key Facts About Unauthorized Immigrants Enrolled in DACA."
Pew Research Center. 25 September 2017. McHugh, Margie. "Diploma, Please: Promoting Educational Attainment for DACA- and Potential DREAM Act-Eligible Youth."
Migration Policy Institute. September 2014. Ryan, Camille L. and Bauman, Kurt. "Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015."
U.S. Census Bureau. March 2016. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: An Overview."
Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. Wong, Tom K. "New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes."
Center for American Progress. 18 October 2016. Wong, Tom K., et al. "DACA Recipients' Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow."
Center for American Progress. 28 August 2017. Zong, Jie, et al. "A Profile of Current DACA Recipients by Education, Industry, and Occupation."
Migration Policy Institute. November 2017. National Center for Education Statistics. "Dropout Rates."
Accessed 25 January 2018. National Immigration Law Center. "DACA and DAPA Access to Federal Health and Economic Support Programs."
30 January 2015. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. "DACA Terminations Related to Criminal and Gang Activity by Fiscal Year."
2017. Former GOP state Sen. Don Huffines recently launched gubernatorial bid is wagering that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott isnt Republican enough for Texas. According to his nascent campaign website, the border is too open, the voter rolls are too rife with illegal aliens, and the taxes are too high. To cure the state of its taxation problem, Huffines campaign proposes an unusual solution for a state that already doesnt collect income taxes  the elimination of property taxes altogether. Texans have some of the highest property taxes in the nation, and the tax only goes up, his campaign website says. We will put the broken property tax system on a path to zero, it continues. Theres little question that property taxes in Texas have generally been rising year over year. The Texas Comptrollers Biennial Property Tax Report shows that single family home values have been on the rise since 2010, resulting in a corresponding rise in the property taxes levied by local governments in each of those years. In 2010, local governments in Texas collected $40.2 billion in property taxes. By 2019, the latest year for which data is available, that number had risen to $67.2 billion. Nearly half of these totals is collected from property taxes levied on single family homes. But has this rise launched Texas taxes into the realm of high-tax states like New York, California and New Jersey? Does Texas now have some of the highest property taxes in the nation, as Huffines claims? State and local governments depend on tax revenue flowing from three different categories, explained Kevin Erdmann, a tax policy expert at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. There's three pretty basic areas of taxation: sales tax, income tax and property tax, he said. Those are the big three to choose from and each state has chosen to weight each one slightly differently. But at the end of the day they all have bills to pay. Texas is one of nine states that doesnt collect income tax revenue, therefore relying more heavily on the two other areas of taxation. I don't think there's much dispute about Texas focusing on property taxes. Typically in discussions about tax bases, Texas will be referenced as a state that's a good example of a state that depends on property taxes as a revenue source, Erdmann explained. But there isnt a perfect method for comparing Texas dependence on property tax revenue to other states. This is partly because states tax real property in a variety of ways. For instance, while some states impose a tax rate on a homes market value, others impose it on a percentage of the market value, according to the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan and pro-business think tank. In some states, counties also can differ in how levies are calculated. According to Janelle Cammenga, a policy analyst with the Tax Foundations Center for State Tax Policy, theres a variety of ways property tax burdens on residential properties can be measured. There are a couple different ways you can compare, none of them are perfect, but they can all kind of give you an idea of where Texas is going to lie, Cammenga said. For instance, state rankings could be organized by property tax collections per capita, which would provide a rough estimate by dividing a states total residential property tax payments by its number of residents. Under this methodology, Texas would have the 13th highest property tax burden with Texans paying $1,973 per year, according to a Tax Foundation analysis. Washington D.C., New Jersey and New Hampshire would top that list, each with over $3,000 in annual per capita property tax payments. Another way to rank states would be to compare states effective tax rates on owner-occupied housing, or the average amount of residential property tax payments. This method takes home values into account by expressing this average amount as a percentage of home value. Here, Texas would rank No. 6, with homeowners paying about 1.6% of their home value in property taxes per year, according to the Tax Foundations analysis. New Jersey again tops that list, followed by Illinois and New Hampshire. This methodology also was used in an analysis cited by Huffines campaign spokesperson. According to this Wallet Hub study, released earlier this year, Texas effective tax rate is the 7th highest in the nation. A third way to compare is by looking at how property tax burdens compare across counties. For instance, which states have the most counties with median property tax payments of over $5,000? New Jersey has 19 counties in which the median property tax burden is higher than $5,000 per year  the highest in the nation. Texas would rank 7th, after New York, Illinois, California, New Hampshire and Connecticut, according to the Tax Foundation. In Texas, the high watermark is set by Collin County, where the median property tax burden is $5,600. Fort Bend County and Travis County follow with median taxes at $5,563 and $5,439, respectively. Its safe to say that Texas tends to have pretty high property taxes, Cammenga said. Whether or not its the highest  that really hard to say. They're probably not, but it is up there. It's unclear exactly how feasible it would be for a state to eliminate property taxes altogether, especially one that already doesnt collect income taxes, experts said. In 2018, property taxes made up 44% of state and local tax collections in Texas. Both experts we spoke with agreed that, if Huffines were elected and able to fulfill this campaign promise, Texas would be the first state in the nation to eliminate property taxes. Eliminating that is a really tall order. That's almost half of (Texas) tax collections, Cammenga said. I don't know of a state that has eliminated property taxes, because it's such an essential part of local finances. I don't think there's another state that has literally zero property tax, Erdmann said. Huffines has pledged to eliminate property taxes if elected governor. He justifies this pledge by claiming that Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the nation. There are several different ways to compare and rank states property tax burden. From the ranking methodologies reviewed here, Texas has between the 6th highest and 13th highest property taxes. Huffines statement is somewhat subjective  theres no absolute way to define some of the highest. Nonetheless, experts generally agree that, even though theres no standard way to compare and rank states property tax burden, Texas is heavily dependent on property tax revenue. We rate this claim Mostly True. A message requesting prayers Greg Comer, a man who battled cancer for over six years, is periodically reposted on social media sites: reposted  Greg Comer has battled cancer for almost 7 yrs. The doctors are giving him only days to live. Greg is 41, married & has 2 children, Jacob 11 & Alyssa 7. Jacob has asked his Mom for a special request, for everyone to pray for a miracle for his daddy. He wants a prayer chain across the world. Please pray for Greg and help start this prayer chain across the world for Jacob. Copy & re-post, and add your city and state before posting in order to keep prayer chain going. Bethpage TnGallatin TnGallatin,TnShiro, TXMagnolia, TXConroe, TXPorter, TXBrenham, txWillis, TXZanesville, OhioDunnellon, FlMarshalltown, IA.Mountain View, MOWaterford,NJMagnolia, NJAmarillo, TexasPittsburgh, Pa.Honolulu, HIJohnstown PAPhoenix, AZSacramento CaDix Hills, NYSuwanee GaLaurel Hollow,NYChandler, AZBuffalo, NYEast Elmhurst, NYForest Hills NY It is true that Greg Comer, a 41 year-old North Carolina man, put up a years-long fight against cancer. Unfortunately, however, messages requesting prayers on his behalf are outdated, as Comer has since passed away. This viral Facebook message was first shared in January 2011. Comer fought the disease for another month before he died on 26 February 2011: shared January 2011 died Gregory Lee Comer, 41, of Lincolnton, won his battle and was welcomed into Heaven to be with the Lord on February 26th, 2011. He leaves behind - but will see again one day -- his loving wife Tina Hilton Comer (he called his angel, the love of his life); their daughter Alyssa Brooke Comer, and his son Jacob Carl Comer. His loving parents, Ernest & Sue Clemmer Comer; his brother and sister-in-law, Jeff Carl & Emily Albright Comer; grandmother, Catherine Southerland; brother-in-law, Kenneth R. Hilton; brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Mark & Melissa Hilton Saunders; father-in-law and mother-in-law, Tony and Juanita Hilton nieces & nephews, Nick & Katie Sue Comer, Kensie, Kayla and Brodie Hilton and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins. Greg being the man he was would want you not to mourn his loss but rejoice for him. His concern would be for his family through this difficult time. Pray for them to have comfort only God can give because his family and faith gave him strength to battle for so long. Prayer chains are quite popular on social media, but they often contain incomplete, outdated, or inaccurate information.  In many cases, such as this one, the lack of a date in the original message often fosters renewed circulation of information that is no longer current.  Legacy.com.  "Greg Comer Obituary."
  28 February 2011. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, reports started to circulate that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had provided the Wuhan Institute of Virology a $3.7 million grant in 2015, while former U.S. President Obama was still in office. These reports were often accompanied by the evidence-free suggestion that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 had "escaped" from this lab and the insinuation that, since this lab reportedly received funding from the Obama administration, the pandemic was therefore Obama's fault. circulate  This claim received widespread attention on April 17 when a reporter from the conservative outlet Newsmax asked President Donald Trump about it during a White House press briefing.  Newsmax reporter Emerald Robinson asked: "Thank you, Mr. President. U.S. Intelligence is saying this week that the coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in Wuhan. There's also another report that the NIH under the Obama administration in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?" Trump responded: "The Obama administration gave them a grant of $3.7 million. I've been hearing about that. And we've instructed that if any grants are going to that area we're looking at it, literally about an hour ago, also early in the morning, we will end that grant very quickly. But it was granted quite awhile ago. They were granted a substantial amount of money." There's a lot to unpack there, so let's start with the basic claim: Did the Obama administration grant $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Between 2014 and 2019, the EcoHealth Alliance was awarded a series of grants totaling approximately $3.7 million by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (a division of the National Institutes of Health) to study the "risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China." Only a portion of this money has been used to fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, however, and approximately $700,000 of this grant money was awarded under the Trump administration. Despite having a grain of truth at its core, the claim that the Obama administration gave a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology is therefore misleading at best. It first gained prominence on April 11, 2020, on the heels of an article published in the Daily Mail. The British tabloid claimed that it had obtained documents showing that coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been funded by a $3.7 million grant from the U.S. government: Daily Mail "Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday show the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan  funded by a $3.7 million grant from the US government." The Daily Mail did not provide links or screenshots to these documents. They did, however, write that this money funded a research paper published in November 2017 entitled: "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus." This is the title of a genuine paper published by researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's also true that this paper was partially funded by money granted by the National Institutes of Health. However, when we followed up using the grant number listed in the funding section of the paper (NIAID R01AI110964), we found that the NIH did not directly issue this series of grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. genuine paper funding section The Department of Health and Human Services' Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) shows that NIAID R01AI110964 was awarded to the EcoHealth Alliance for "understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence." Between 2014 and 2019, this global environmental health nonprofit organization received a total of $3.7 million from NIH: NIAID R01AI110964   While a portion of these grants funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, this lab did not receive all $3.7 million. Under award number NIAID R01AI110964, NIH also funded studies produced by institutions in the United States, Australia, and Singapore, and the work involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology was an international collaboration with the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance. studies United States Australia Singapore EcoHealth Alliance Furthermore, while these funds were originally appropriated by the NIH in 2014 during the Obama administration, the most recent payment, in 2019, was authorized by the Trump administration. The payments record in the above-displayed image from the Department of Health and Human Services show that the EcoHealth Alliance filed "Noncompeting Continuation" applications in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. In 2019, however, the organization filed a renewal application (previously called a "competing continuation"). This renewal application was awarded by the NIH under Trump's administration. Here's how NIH defines these two different types of grant applications: defines Renewal: Initial request for additional funding for a period subsequent to that provided by a current award. Renewal applications compete for funding with all other peer reviewed applications and must be developed as fully as though the applicant is applying for the first time. (Previously referred to as "competing continuation.") Noncompeting Continuation: Request or award for a subsequent budget period within a previously approved project for which a recipient does not have to compete with other applications. Although the initial grant was approved under the Obama administration in 2014, EcoHealth Alliance's renewal application was approved by the Trump administration in 2019.  It should also be noted that these grants were not awarded to fund a laboratory. They were awarded to fund research into how bat coronavirus could emerge and spread to human populations. The purpose of this kind of research, spurred into action by the 2002 SARS outbreak, is to understand the process of how coronaviruses become transmissible to humans. That earlier outbreak was also caused by a coronavirus linked to bats. purpose Is it unusual for the United States to fund research in other countries?  In short, no. While this claim is often circulated as if the Obama administration did something unusual, or even nefarious, by awarding a series of grants that would subsequently fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the United States routinely provides funding to international research organizations. In fact, records show that the NIH has provided approximately $2.5 million in additional funding to various organizations in China (including Wuhan University) in 2018 and 2019, under the Trump administration. In 2007, while George W. Bush was president, NIH provided more than $2 million to various research centers across China.  records show provided Furthermore, international organizations often come together to solve problems that could impact the global population, such as pandemic. In 2003, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) called on countries around the world to develop a diagnostic test for SARS.  2003 World Health Organization On 17 March 2003, WHO called upon 11 laboratories in 9 countries to join a collaborative multi-center research project on SARS diagnosis. This network takes advantage of modern communication technologies (e-mail; secure web site) to share outcomes of investigation of clinical samples from SARS cases in real time. Daily assessment of research results supports immediate refinement of investigative strategies and permits instant validation of laboratory findings. Network members share on the secure WHO web site electron microscopic pictures of viruses, sequences of genetic material for virus identification and characterization, virus isolates, various samples from patients and post-mortem tissues. Samples from one and the same patient can be analysed in parallel in several laboratories and results shared in real time. This network joins the intellectual resources of leading laboratories worldwide for a common goal: the detection of the SARS agent and the development of a diagnostic test. The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a similar call to action: spurred While political leaders have locked their borders, scientists have been shattering theirs, creating a global collaboration unlike any in history. Never before, researchers say, have so many experts in so many countries focused simultaneously on a single topic and with such urgency. Nearly all other research has ground to a halt Lloyd-Smith, James.  "Predictions of Virus Spillover Across Species."
 Nature.  29 June 2017. Owen, Glen.  "Wuhan Lab Was Performing Coronavirus Experiments on Bats From the Caves Where the Disease is Believed to Have Originated - With a 3m Grant From the US."
  Daily Mail.  11 April 2020. Dilanian, Ken and Courtney Kube.  "U.S. Intel Community Examining Whether Coronavirus Emerged Accidentally From a Chinese Lab."
  NBC News.  16 April 2020. Baier, Bret and Gregg Re.  "Sources Believe Coronavirus Outbreak Originated in Wuhan Lab as Part of China's Efforts to Compete with US."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Apuzza, Matt and David Kirkpatrick.  "Covid-19 Changed How the World Does Science, Together."
  The New York Times.  14 April 2020. Barclay, Eliza.  "Why These Scientists Still Doubt the Coronavirus Leaked From a Chinese Lab."
  Vox.  23 April 2020. United Nations.   "UN Mobilizes Global Cooperation in Science-Based COVID-19 Responses." 
 Retrieved 23 April 2020. McNeil, Donald.  "Scientists Were Hunting for the Next Ebola. Now the U.S. Has Cut Off Their Funding."
  The New York Times.  25 October 2019. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. The term small business covers a range of seven different size categories, ranging from a two-person mom-and-pop grocery store to a factory with nearly 500 employees.Which is why researchers at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics chuckled when we asked them about a statement Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder made about small businesses creating new jobs.Appearing on WCPN 90.3 FMs Sound of Ideas program, Batchelder noted the importance of small businesses in Ohios economy.Seventy-five percent of the jobs created in the state of Ohio are created in small business. They are not created by huge corporations and those who are very wealthy, Batchelder said.PolitiFact Ohio thought that sounded interesting and we put the Truth-O-Meter to work.We started by contacting the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Researchers there cited statistics that showed 99 percent of all private sector companies in the United States are considered small businesses, according to the definition used by the Small Business Administration. It categorizes any firm that employs 499 or fewer people as a small business.Traditionally, the number of people employed by small businesses has been about the same as the number who work for businesses of 500 people or more, said Brian Headd of the SBAs Office of Advocacy. That category would include large factories, like auto plants and steel manufacturers.As of last year, the majority of workers had tipped toward small businesses, which employed just under 55 percent of the nations workforce, the BLSs most recent statistics showed.We also checked with Batchelders office about the source of the speakers statement. Spokesman Mike Dittoe gave us two: The National Federation of Independent Businesss Ohio office in Columbus, and a March 2010 report prepared by Headd titled, An Analysis of Small Business and Jobs.Roger Geiger, NFIB/Ohios executive director, both confirmed Batchelders statement and also referred us to the Headd report.Headd also echoed Batchelders sentiment that small businesses are important to the nations economic health. He points out how one in five employees at small firms work part-time, and how a greater percentage of Hispanics, high school students, disabled, elderly, and rural employees work at small businesses.Headd also noted that more than half of all companies start out small, stay small and close after a few years, accounting for 85 percent of job turnover in the country -- which is not necessarily a bad thing. Headd considers the hefty job changes experienced in small businesses to be beneficial and a natural outgrowth of a healthy economy.Although job turnover can be an emotional roller coaster for individuals, small firm job flows are a boon to the economy, Headd wrote in his report. This churning represents the economys constant evolution from outmoded processes and industries to more productive ones, a process he calls creative destruction.Headd sees small businesses as key to the nations recovery from the recession of 2009.With the labor market struggling in recent years, small businesses are a logical group to look to for job recovery as they have such a large role in net job creation, he wrote.BLS researchers confirmed that their most recent statistics indicated that 75 percent of all new hires nationwide were made by small businesses in the second quarter of 2010. Over the past eight years, small businesses made 65 percent of all new hires in the United States, they said. And of small business job creation, nearly three out of four new workers were hired at companies with less than 20 employees.But what about Ohio? Do the states small businesses mirror the national trend?Benjamin Johnson of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services had data from the federal government on the most recent statewide breakdown, by county, of the total number of workers employed in Ohio, but could not provide specific information to verify Batchelders claim that 75 percent of the jobs created in the state of Ohio are created in small business.Geiger, in the Ohio office of the National Federation of Independent Business, didnt have Ohio-specific data either.And the BLS told us they didnt track that data, either. But researchers there made a point of saying they were sure Batchelders statement was essentially correct. As one pointed out: 99 out of 100 employers are classified as small businesses, so saying 75 percent of all new jobs in Ohio are created by small businesses is hardly different than saying ALL businesses create ALL jobs.So the experts who deal with labor statistics back up Batchelders claim, but we also note that the absence of specific data on Ohio jobs is a point that provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter we rate Batchelders statement as Mostly True. Austin MayorSteve Adler, who seeks a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In anApril 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to this clue fromthat nights episodeof Jeopardy: Per Rick Perry, its the blueberry in the tomato soup. Perry, the Republican former governor,often offers the blueberry characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered Austin for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running? Is all of that true about Austin? Not all: In 2017,we found Half Truean Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that theFBI advises againstusing crime data it collects to declare one city safer than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested both that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016. Seeking mayors factual backup The morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didnt have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 safest big city in Texas statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austins jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nations best place to live. Checking Austins unemployment Our search for Austins jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the citys jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017:          SOURCE:Website,Unemployment,Texas Labor Market Information, Texas Workforce Commission (search completed April 26, 2018) Austin ranked best place to live two times in a row On April 10, 2018, U.S. Newsannouncedthat for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas;Colorado Springs, Colo.,placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents to find out what qualities they consider important in a home town. The methodology, U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--plus U.S. News rankings of the countrys high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the planet,earneda score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story says: The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median. Then again, the story says, Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax, and a low state and local tax rate. Another semi-warning in the story: Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching. Though, the story says, the metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, though temperatures have been known to drop in the winter. The story also notes: Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion. But, the story says, that can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking and biking. Our ruling Adler referred to Austin as the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running. Hizzonerwas right about Austins jobless rate of late and Austin getting named the citys best place to live two years in a row though its worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the countrys 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. This said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans this year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid: Express   The article was entitled "Asteroid terror: NASA spot mammoth space rock to hit Earth's orbit five days before X-mas." The subheading gave earthlings an even smaller chance of survival: "AN ASTEROID the size of the World Trade Centre is on a dangerous Earth-bound orbit that could see the rock smash the planet during Christmas festivities." When the article was regurgitated by even less-reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!" Digital Wise NASA has made no such announcement, and Earth is not in danger of being hit by an asteroid around Christmas.  These articles are all based on a real asteroid (known as 216258 2006 WH1) and its holiday approach toward Earth. However, these articles present the information as if this asteroid is particularly dangerous. But there's nothing unusually threatening about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles. lists Dr. Paul W. Chodas, the Director of the Center for Near Earth Object Studies, told us in an email that there is "nothing unusual or dangerous" about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1: No, there is nothing unusual or dangerous about this asteroid. It is simply making a close approach to the Earth. Astronomers have been observing this asteroids position for 13 years, we know its orbit very accurately, we can predict its close approaches accurately for the next 200 years, and we know with certainty that it cannot hit our planet. Lindley Johnson, NASAs Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), also told us that this asteroid "poses no hazard to impacting earth":  NASA and other US agencies are lead players in the international effort to develop plans to respond to a possible Near-Earth Object (NEO) impact. In 2018, the White House released the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, which identifies key steps that US agencies need to take to better prepare the United Statesand the worldfor detecting and responding to a possible impact. NASA has been directed by Congress to catalogue and characterize all NEOs bigger than 140 meters, the ones that could be catastrophic. NASA is approximately 35% complete for NEOs 140 meters and larger, and approximately 96% complete for those 1 km and larger. Strategic investments in our space-based programs will lead to the benefit of all of humanity as we continue to catalogue any NEOs that pose a potential threat. This particular asteroids trajectory has been well tracked by NASAs Center for Near-Earth Object Studies since its discovery 13 years and poses no hazard to impacting Earth. Here's a little more information about near-earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours):  writes On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earths surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earths surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earths surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earths surface and cause local disasters or produce the tidal waves that can inundate low lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earths atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earths surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions and structures and to keep an eye upon their future trajectories ... ... No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA Near-Earth Object Observations Program is constantly monitoring the skies for approaching asteroids and meteors. So far, the program has discovered more than 19,000 NEOs. When NASA discovers an NEO, it works to determine as much information as possible about the object, such as its size, speed, and orbit, so that the agency can calculate when it will approach Earth and how close it will come when it does.  But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered: discovered Asteroid impacts are a continuously occurring natural process. Every day, 80 to 100 tons of material falls upon Earth from space in the form of dust and small meteorites (fragments of asteroids that disintegrate in Earths atmosphere). Over the past 20 years, U.S. government sensors have detected nearly 600 very small asteroids a few meters in size that have entered Earths atmosphere and created spectacular bolides (fireballs). Experts estimate that an impact of an object the size of the one that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013  approximately 55 feet (17 meters) in size  takes place once or twice a century. Impacts of larger objects are expected to be far less frequent (on the scale of centuries to millennia). However, given the current incompleteness of the NEO catalogue, an unpredicted impact  such as the Chelyabinsk event  could occur at any time. Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting earth in the next 100 years is minimal: hitting The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in sizelarger than a small football stadiumand to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause, and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date. Asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 will pass by Earth a few days before Christmas. However, NASA has issued no warnings about a catastrophic impact, and CNEOS reports that this asteroid will get no closer than 3 million miles from Earth during its approach.  NASA.  "Near-Earth Object Observations Program."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. NASA.  "Planetary Defense Frequently Asked Questions."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. Day, Joel.  "Asteroid Terror: NASA Spot Mammoth Space Rock to Hit Earth's Orbit Five Days Before X-Mas."
  Express.  23 October 2019. Some critics of Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded with a measure of ridicule and criticism in the Spring of 2019, after remarks she made about the introduction of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which imposed a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote: wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., might want to brush up on some history after asserting, incorrectly, that Republicans in Congress amended the Constitution to kick President Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of office. "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," Ocasio-Cortez said [March 29] during a night hall event with MSNBC with Chris Hayes. According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which passed in 1947. The text of the amendment states, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. FDR died in 1945, meaning he was dead for a full two years before presidential term limits were implemented. That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office." re-published The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing: writing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be getting As in social media  but shes getting an F in basic history. The Bronx-Queens Democrat flunked 20th century world events last week when she claimed during a town-hall meting [sic] that the Constitution was changed to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from being re-elected. In fact, he died two years before the amendment to which she was referring was passed and six years before it was ratified by the requisite number of states. A video clip of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks was prominently shared on Twitter by Tom Elliott, who added: "According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: 'They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.' (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947)." According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected." (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy  Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019 March 31, 2019   Critics of Ocasio-Cortez pounced on her remarks as evidence of a purported lack of historical knowledge on her part. However, the Congresswoman's subsequent comments on the subject, along with clarification provided by her spokesperson, indicated the intended meaning of her remarks was that the catalyst behind the development of the two-term limit (which was ultimately enshrined in the 22nd amendment) had been Roosevelt's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s, and not that the introduction of the 22nd amendment (as opposed to Roosevelt's death) prevented what would have been his fourth re-election. The Congresswoman's remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the "Green New Deal," a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy. plan Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, asked Ocasio-Cortez what lessons she had learned from the "New Deal," the series of economic projects FDR introduced in the 1930s with the intention of helping the U.S. economy to recover from the Great Depression, and the program to which the "Green New Deal" is an allusion. One of the points Ocasio-Cortez made in response to that question was to highlight the importance of Democratic success in facilitating the passage of legislation that introduced New Deal programs. Here's a (lightly edited) transcript of that segment, which can be viewed below: Paul:...What are the lessons from the New Deal that we can bring in today? Ocasio-Cortez: There's [sic] a lot. One is, you know when we talk, when we start picking apart the problem of political will --you know, "Technologically possible, is it politically feasible?" -- one of the big parts of political will is fear, especially fear within our own party. "If we do this, if we are a little too bold, we will lose our majorities, we will lose everything." And it is a difficult question because the House has been gerrymandered in ways that are extremely difficult. But I think there's [sic] a couple of lessons. One is that, when we look into our history, when our [Democratic] party was boldest -- the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on -- we had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate, we carried the presidency. They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected. And there were so many extraordinary things that were happening in that time that were uniting working people, and so that, I think, is one of the encouraging lessons ...  The point Ocasio-Cortez was making in that section of the interview was to highlight the role that electoral success for Democrats -- not least of which was FDR's repeated presidential victories during the 1930s and 1940s -- played in facilitating the introduction of major reforms such as the New Deal programs. FDR was first elected in 1932, then re-elected three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. To illustrate the extent of FDR's power and popularity at that time, the Congresswoman said: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." The manner in which she phrased that statement ("They had to ... to make sure") indicated, on its face, that Ocasio-Cortez was saying that the introduction of the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent FDR from being re-elected a fourth time. It is therefore understandable that some commentators seized upon her remarks and made the rather obvious point that the 22nd Amendment was not required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment was ratified and came into effect. (FDR died two years before the U.S. Congress passed the amendment, but it was not implemented until it was ratified by the requisite number of states six years after his death, contrary to the Washington Examiner's inaccurate statement that he had died "two years before presidential term limits were implemented.") However, that was not the intended meaning of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, according to a spokesperson for the Congresswoman. The spokesperson told us it was "pretty clear" that her intention was simply to point out that FDR's repeated re-elections, and the sustained implementation of his policy agenda, had been the catalyst for Republican efforts to introduce a term limit on the U.S. presidency, a plan that began while FDR was still alive. That this was Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the "full story" behind her remarks, which reported that: tweeted article The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried, with both Fox News and the Washington Examiner running the story and calling Ocasio-Cortezs claims false. However, some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelts monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death ... The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortezs back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy." It is unquestionably true that efforts to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency began before FDR's death and were intensified by his unprecedented third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944. FDR's decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie's platform that year. In a speech accepting his party's nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: "I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson." speech In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put "The Third Term" at the top of a list of major issues, writing: "Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention ... and gave as an excuse I was drafted.' Are we Americans that gullible? ... Let us say together, 'There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term.'" advertisement   (In order to avoid the controversy of actively seeking to break the two-term tradition, FDR coyly declined to openly declare himself a candidate in 1940, and instead his supporters arranged for him to be "drafted" as a nominee by delegates at the 1940 Democratic National Convention.) In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that "When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less." statement Before FDR's third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed," adding, "I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment." speech FDR won his fourth presidential election that year, but he died just five months later, in April 1945, leaving Vice President Harry Truman to serve out nearly all of what would have been his fourth term. After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.) ratify The 22nd amendment states, in part: states No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC on 29 March was that, "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." It is understandable that some of her critics viewed this as her saying that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, an assertion which would make no sense because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment entered into force. However, according to clarification provided to Snopes by her spokesperson, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning was simply to point out that the catalyst for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution and impose a two-term limit had been FDR's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s. As we have shown, that is certainly true, and calls for such a constitutional amendment began to intensify even before FDR's second re-election in 1940, almost five years before his death. Gage, John.  "AOC Flubs History of FDR& and Change to Constitution."
  The Washington Examiner.  31 March 2019. Moore, Mark and Nikki Schwab.  "Ocasio-Cortez Falsely Says GOP Changed Constitution to Block FDR from Re-Election."
  The New York Post.  1 April 2019. Daly, Matthew.  "Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change."
  Associated Press.  7 February 2019. Paton, Callum.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Attacked on Twitter for Constitutional Mistake -- But Here's the Full Story."
  Newsweek.  1 April 2019. Willkie, Wendell.  "Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination in Elwood, Indiana."
  The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara.  17 August 1940. The Columbus Telegram.  "Americanism Must Live! [Republican Election Advertisement]."
  1 November 1940. Associated Press.  "Willkie Urges 2-Term Limit for Presidency."
  The [Wilimington] News Journal.  4 November 1940. United Press International.  "Dewey Declares Fourth Term Freedom Threat."
  The Salt Lake Tribune.  1 November 1944. Williams, Tom.  "Anti-3rd Term Amendment Ratified as Nevada Casts Required 36th State Vote."
  The Terre Haute Star.  27 February 1951. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.  "U.S. Constitution, 22nd Amendment."
  Accessed 2 April 2019.