Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Hails American 'Stupidity'
Claim:  Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. :   Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency.     UNDETERMINED: Video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Hey Media, is UPenn pulling the Gruber video where he says ObamaCare passed by Democrats lying to the public a newsworthy event? Just askin'  Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare's architect admitted that lack of transparency/stupidity of electorate helped pass the bill   Origins:  In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conferenceinvolving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place. panel Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below:  During the portion of the video in question, Gruber said: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated  subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in  you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money  it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. After video of the conference was put online, Gruber elaborated on what he meant by his attention-garnering remarks and apologized for them, saying that he "spoke inappropriately": elaborated Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected. "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't  do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." In the video, Gruber appeared to be speaking specifically about the political environment in 2010 and its impact on the law's funding mechanisms. Gruber takes a critical stance on some of those outcomes, calling them "irrational." "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves tradeoffs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." Gruber apologized for his comments during an on-air interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. "The comments in the video were made at an academic conference," Gruber said. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Although Gruber apologized for the language he used, Gruber said that the larger point he was trying to make centered on the political pressures that shaped the law. He added that those pressures "led to an incomplete law with some typos." "It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did in Massachusetts, which would be to just give people money to offset the cost of their health insurance," Gruber said. "That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done through the tax code." The full video of the 2013 Health Economics Conference was published by PennLDI on YouTube, and when the excerpt video of Gruber's remarks began to circulate online, many viewers assumed the comments to be recent (they were not), and others maintained PennLDI then removed the clip from the Internet due to the political controversy. On the latter point, several Twitter users posted screenshots of a YouTube error page that indicated the source video had been (at least briefly) removed by the University after Gruber's remarks became a focus of attention: recent  However, it isn't yet clear whether the PennLDI video was deliberately pulled from the Internet due to the political controversy it created, or whether it was made unavailable at some point after it was initially posted for unrelated reasons (e.g.,  error, copyright issues, technical problems).   It appears the comments made by Gruber entered the stream of social media hot topics when they were spotted and excerpted from the longer PennLDI video by Philadelphia investment adviser Rich Weinstein, then posted to the YouTube channel of the American Commitment 501(c)(4) (i.e., a politically active nonprofit organization), whose Phil Kerpen tweeted: Rich Weinstein American Commitment My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent...  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  The claim that the University of Pennsylvania deliberately tried to scrub the clip from the Internet may also have stemmed from Kerpen or the PAC: Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  Last updated:  12 November 2014
Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. Since at least 2021, internet users have been admiring an impressive, but fake image purporting to show the core of the Milky Way galaxy framed by Karnak, an ancient Egyptian temple complex, northeast of the city of Luxor.  Here is one example, posted to Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:  The image above is not a real representation of the view into the heavens from Karnak in Egypt. It was debunked in 2021 by Juan Carlos Muoz-Mateos, media officer for the European Southern Observatory, a research facility based in Germany. The moon in the image is too large and is transparent, and the core of the Milky Way isn't visible from Karnak's location, Munoz wrote in a Twitter thread explaining how he could tell the image was faked. debunked transparent   We were unable to locate the original version of the image or its creator, but the earliest instances we found of the picture online was 2017. It's been shared in various forums like a Reddit channel dedicated to "shamelessly stolen" images. shamelessly stolen In an email sent to Snopes, Munoz said that such fake but visually appealing space/science images often crop up on content-scraping social media feeds, which can be identified by features like generic but easily searchable names like "curiosity" or "black hole." The images shared are most often uncredited. "Their bios say things like 'DM for credit/removal' or 'credit goes to the respective owner,' Munoz observed. "Another common question is why this matters, whats the harm with these accounts," Munoz wrote. "Besides the obvious problem of sharing wrong information, these accounts often link to fishy websites riddled with ads, or they're follower farms that are later sold and renamed." It may take time, but it's worthwhile to report them and get them removed from social media platforms, Munoz added. False accusations alleging protesters at confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid as part of a nefarious liberal conspiracy to block his confirmation resulted in intense harassment for two people whose images were posted online along with misleading information. Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings.The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action:Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation).Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned."These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police."Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy.Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us:Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money.Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars.RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.)The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle.A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back:Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group:I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why.I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below.During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors.She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that.Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over.We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest.  Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings. first post and forfeit The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action: website video Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018 The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."   While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation). Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned. "These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police." Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy. Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us: Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money. Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars. users Gateway Pundit Your News Wire Infowars RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.) RealClearPolitics The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle. popped up repeatedly A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back: Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation #KavanaughConfirmation  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018  On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group: authored I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why. I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below. During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors. She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over. boogeyman We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest. Schindler, Adam.  "Story Behind Kavanaugh 'Paid Protesters.'
  AdamSchindler.com.  6 September 2018. Hulse, Carl.  "A New Reality for Court Confirmations: Pandemonium, Protesters and Partisanship."
  The New York Times.  4 September 2018. Brown, Emma. "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault."
  The Washington Post  16 September 2018. One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017. Yes, the unemployment rate is still high. But those without a college degree are hurting even more, according to President Barack Obama, who was in Austin last week to raise money for fellow Democrats. Now, I know some folks argue that as we emerge from the worst recession since the Great Depression, my administration should focus solely on economic issues, he said during a side speech at the University of Texas at Austin on Aug. 9. But as I said the other week to the National Urban League, education is an economic issue. It may be the economic issue of our time. Its an economic issue when the unemployment rate for folks whove never gone to college is almost double what it is for those who have. Almost double? Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesman, pointed us to employment data kept by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Looking at labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey, the unemployment rate for those with at least a bachelor's degree was 4.5 percent in July 2010, while 10.1 percent of high school graduates who didn't attend college were without jobs. Add those who never graduated from high school, and the unemployment rate creeps up to 11 percent. That's more than double the unemployment rate for Americans with a bachelor's, master's, doctorate or professional degree. Include those who attend attended some college or earned an associates degree, and the jobless rate for the college crowd is 6 percent. So, as of July, the unemployment rate for those who never went to college is almost double what it is for those who have. How did the two unemployment rates shake out historically? The data during the last two years show similar ratios. In 2009, on average, about 10.9 percent of those who never attended college were unemployed, while 6.1 percent of those with at least some college were unemployed. In 2008, the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent for those without college, and about 3.1 for those who had. We rate Obama's statement as True. On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. Claim:  A collector deliberately placed three valuable U.S. coins into circulation in New York in April 2006.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] A friend told me that she heard that a millionnaire put a penny worth a million dollars in circulation by using it to buy a hot dog at a vendor cart. Supposedly you can tell because it has a "J" under the year.   Origins:  One of the many windfall schemes that some of us dream about in our idle moments is fortuitously turning up a rare old coin worth hundreds or even thousands of   dollars  perhaps through discovering one stashed away by a relative who has forgotten about it, uncovering one hidden beneath some dirt or debris, or simply finding one in a handful of change.  The last of these routes rarely yields lucky finds anymore, as collectors and treasure-seekers have long since plucked every coin of significant value from circulation, but in April 2006 the odds of making such an advantageous discovery got a little bit better. To help introduce more people to "the magic of coin collecting," Scott A. Travers, a 44-year-old former vice president of the American Numismatic Association and author of The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, decided to mark National Coin Week in mid-April 2006 by deliberately spending three valuable old pennies as he made routine purchases around Manhattan.  "I'm planting a seed, and I hope that a new generation of people will come to appreciate the history that coins represent," he said. The three coins Scott Travers spent were all relatively low-mintage U.S. one-cent pieces nearly one hundred years old:  a 1908-S Indian Head cent, and 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincoln cents.  (In the conditions released by Travers, at the time those coins were worth roughly $200, $1,000, and $300, respectively.) Mr. Travers said he put the  1908-S 1909-S VDB 1914-D 1914-D Lincoln cent into circulation on 12 April 2006 when he purchased a pretzel from a food stand outside the NASDAQ offices in Times Square, and a few days later he spent the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent to buy a bottle of water from a different vendor in Times Square, then walked a block to a newsstand where he used the 1908-S Indian Head cent. Within a few weeks, seven people came forward saying they had found the $1,000 coin (i.e., the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent), but Travers said that although the proffered coins were real, none of them was the one he released into circulation.  As of 2009 there had been no reports of anyone's finding any of the three rare pennies, but Scott Travers may never find out what happened to them, as it's quite possible the valuable cents ended up lost, squirreled away as oddities by people who didn't know their true value, or retrieved and sold by lucky finders unaware the coins were deliberately placed into circulation.  Indeed, Mr. Travers has tried the same stunt more than once, and he hasn't ever learned the fate of some of the valuable coins involved in those previous attempts: Travers has spent rare coins before. In 1999, he did it to coincide with the numismatic association's convention in New York, although he never found out whether one of the rare pennies was rediscovered. Past coin drops, in 1997 and 2002, succeeded in sparking interest in coin collecting, but Travers doesn't know if anyone "cashed in" by finding the coins. Travers has met many people who believe they've discovered his coins, and though they may have found valuable coins, they weren't his. Last updated:  17 March 2011    Healey, Matthew.  "Find a Penny, Pick It Up, Sell It for 1,000 Bucks."   The New York Times.  14 April 2006  (p. B3).    Schapiro, Rich.  "Coins in Circulation May Be Worth Up to $1,000, Says Expert."   [New York] Daily News.  9 January 2009. To counter Republican criticism that the stimulus money is not being spent fast enough, Vice President Joe Biden has been traveling the country to boast about the recovery plan's success stories.In conjunction with a July 9, 2009, trip to Ohio, Biden's office put out a news release with this talking point: Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days.The White House says it is getting the numbers from its own Web site, Recovery.gov. We counted 130 days after Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17, which took us to June 27. On that day, the government had committed $157.8 billion, slightly less than the $174 billion cited by Biden.Those numbers are culled from weekly reports submitted by all federal agencies. The total stimulus cost will ultimately be roughly $787 billion, with about $499 billion for new spending. (The other $288 billion is for tax relief.) So that means that about 35 percent of the spending ($174.9 billion of $499 billion) has been allocated so far.That might sound like a lot, but Republican critics complain the money is just trickling out. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, complained last week that only 6.8 percent of the stimulus package has been spent.The numbers can be confusing, making you wonder whether Kyl is right about the 6.8 percent or Biden is right about the 35 percent. So we investigated and found that, like so many things in the federal budgeting process, it all comes down to semantics.John Porcari, deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, wrote how this confusion is playing out in miniature at his agency, after getting what he considered some bad press in aUSA Todaystory that maintained that only $132 million of the total $27.5 billion earmarked for road construction funding has been spent.Indeed, there's a big difference between how much money the government has already spent  that figure is about $60 billion, according to the White House  and how much the government has obligated or committed to a project.Whenever a state obligates or dedicates their Recovery dollars to a project that means it is green-lighted, Porcari wrote on Recovery.gov. States can start advertising the project and soliciting bids and once a bid is awarded contractors can buy supplies, bring workers on board and start breaking ground. It could be weeks before the reimbursement process starts so those outlays are in no way an indicator of how much money is getting to states, how much work is being done or how many people are working. The $16 billion obligated to thousands of highway projects is the true measure of how much highway money is reaching states.Using his definition, about $16 billion has been obligated to road construction projects, far more than what's actually been spent.So for practical purposes, money committed is the same as obligated and allocated. It's money that will be spent on a particular project.It's fair to use those broader terms, according to Jim Horney, a budget expert at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because the guarantee of the money can sometimes be enough to keep an agency or a company from laying off a worker.It's not just when the check has been written that we see an impact, he said.Take Virginia, for example. Earlier in the year, lawmakers were planning to lay off teachers to save cash. But when the stimulus passed, the state knew it would be getting some financial relief, so officials changed their budget to keep those teachers employed.The money isn't in the state treasury at that moment, but it still has a ripple effect on the economy, Horney said.If [teachers] knew they would be laid off, they would have started saving money, stopped buying clothes, preparing for hard times ahead, he said. Knowing they would have a job in the coming school year, teachers were less likely to adopt austerity measures.Horney had this caveat: Impact on the economy depends on how quickly the money is actually spent or reimbursed. If it takes five years for the government to pay a state back for a project, then the state may take some cost-cutting measures in the meantime.Conservatives, though, say the true measurement of economic impact is money actually spent, said Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.The economic theory behind the stimulus suggests only actual outlays can create jobs and drive money through the economy, he said.So back to Biden. He said that $174 billion had been committed at the 130-day mark. Federal records show he was a little off. The administration's Recovery.gov site shows that $157.8 billion had been committed. So we give Biden a Mostly True. 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 the first few months of 2020, as the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic sprouted in China, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published figures showing a drop of about 21 million cellphone users and 840,000 landline users. According to The Associated Press, online data published by Chinas three largest cellphone carriers indicated that for January and February 2020, China Mobile Ltd. reported a drop of nearly 7.25 million subscribers, while China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd. lost 7.8 million subscribers and China Telecom Corp. lost 5.6 million in February alone. published figures As of April 2020, China had reported a total of about 81,000 COVID-19 cases and about 3,300 deaths from the disease. Some sources seized on the disparity between the numbers of afflicted and cellphone subscribers to assert that the true COVID-19 death in China had been concealed and vastly underreported. reported "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll," proclaimed a headline in The Epoch Times. "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths," declared the Panam Post: headline The Epoch Times declared  It is true that intelligence officials outside of China believe that the country's government has understated the spread of the coronavirus and the damage the pandemic has caused there, as The New York Times, among others, reported in early April 2020: reported The C.I.A. has been warning the White House since at least early February that China has vastly understated its coronavirus infections and that its count could not be relied upon as the United States compiles predictive models to fight the virus, according to current and former intelligence officials. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Chinese government itself does not know the extent of the virus and is as blind as the rest of the world. Midlevel bureaucrats in the city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, and elsewhere in China have been lying about infection rates, testing and death counts, fearful that if they report numbers that are too high they will be punished, lose their position or worse, current and former intelligence officials said. Bureaucratic misreporting is a chronic problem for any government, but it has grown worse in China as the Communist leadership has taken a more authoritarian turn in recent years under Mr. Xi. The Times reported again the following day that Chinese officials appeared to be pushing for quick burials of the dead and suppressing online discussion of fatalities in order to head off public opprobrium over the government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak: following day For months, the residents of Wuhan had been told they could not pick up the ashes of their loved ones who had died during the height of Chinas coronavirus outbreak. Now that the authorities say the epidemic is under control, officials are pushing the relatives to bury the dead quickly and quietly, and they are suppressing online discussion of fatalities as doubts emerge about the true size of the toll. Chinas official death toll from the coronavirus stood at 3,322 on [April 3], but medical workers and others have suggested the count should be higher ... As China tries to control the narrative, the police in Wuhan, where the pandemic began, have been dispatched to break up groups on WeChat, a popular messaging app, set up by the relatives of coronavirus victims. Government censors have scrubbed images circulating on social media showing relatives in the city lining up at funeral homes to collect ashes. Officials have assigned minders to relatives to follow them as they pick burial plots, claim their loved ones remains and bury them, grieving family members say. The ruling Communist Party says it is trying to prevent large gatherings from causing a new outbreak. But its tight controls appear to be part of a concerted attempt to avoid an outpouring of anguish and anger that could be a visceral reminder of its early missteps and efforts to conceal the outbreak. Those same public displays or discussions of loss could also feed skepticism over how China has counted the dead. Still, to believe that the drop in cellphone subscriptions experienced by Chinese carriers corresponds directly to unreported coronavirus deaths, one would have to believe that the Chinese government managed to misreport COVID-19 mortality in that country by a factor of about 7,000 ... and then let the cat out of the bag by openly publishing statistics about cellphone usage that revealed those unreported deaths. Perhaps some correlation exists, but as The Associated Press reported, the drop in cellphone subscriptions in China could also be attributable to reasons other than millions of subscribers' succumbing to COVID-19: reported A representative with China Mobile Ltd. said while the situation was related to the COVID-19 outbreak, it was not related to deaths, but changes in lifestyle. It was mainly due to reduced business and social activities resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, a spokesperson with the company confirmed to the AP. Many customers in China have multiple SIM cards and it is common that they use their non-primary SIM cards to do these activities. A China Unicom representative acknowledged the difficult market forces at work: For the first two months of 2020, [we were] facing challenges such as market saturation, keen market competition and the novel coronavirus outbreak ..." Hao, Nicole.  "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll."
  The Epoch Times.  22 March 2020. Flor, Mamela Fiallo.  "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths."
  Panam Post.  6 April 2020. Lajka, Arijeta,  "Drop in Cellphone Users in China Wrongly Attributed to Coronavirus Deaths."
  The Associated Press.  30 March 2020. Qin, Amy and Cao Li.  "China Pushes for Quiet Burials as Coronavirus Death Toll Is Questioned."
  The New York Times.  3 April 2020. Barnes, Julian E.  "C.I.A. Hunts for Authentic Virus Totals in China, Dismissing Government Tallies."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2020. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don't know that is in 2004, the AP was a "birther" news organization. How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available here. here The AP reporter stated the following: Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.  (Sunday Standard/Internet Archive) article However, The Associated Press made no such reference; the identification of Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born" was added to the Sunday Standard's version of the AP story by someone else (who misspelled the politician's given name as "Barrack" in the process) and is apparently unique to that publication. The full text of the "Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid" article as originally issued by the Associated Press is retrievable from the LexisNexis archive of global news sources, and it contains no reference (in the lead-in or elsewhere) to Barack Obama's being "Kenyan-born": Associated Press Online June 25, 2004 Friday Illinois' Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid BYLINE: MAURA KELLY LANNAN; Associated Press WriterSECTION: NATIONAL POLITICAL NEWSDATELINE: CHICAGO Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days. "It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign - the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play." The campaign began to come apart Monday following the release of embarrassing records from Ryan's divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, "Boston Public" actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched. Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one "avant-garde" club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable. In quitting the race, Ryan lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records. "The media has gotten out of control," he said. Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke. "I feel for him actually," Obama said on WLS-AM. "What he's gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn't wish on anybody. Unfortunately, I think our politics has gotten so personalized and cutthroat that it's very difficult for people to want to get in the business." Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times in Washington this week to discuss whether the campaign could survive. "He really was a dead man walking," Gary MacDougal, former Illinois Republican Party chairman. Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, Ryan's advisers told the candidate that the only way to survive would be wage an extremely negative and expensive response. "Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with Ryan. Ryan was a political neophyte when he got into the race - a millionaire investment banker who had left business four years ago to teach at an all-boys parochial school in Chicago. He spent $3 million of his own fortune to win the primary. With his good looks and Harvard background, Ryan was seen by many as the party's best hope for revitalizing the Illinois GOP. The party lost control of the governor's office and nearly every statewide office two years ago in the wake of a corruption scandal involving then-Gov. George Ryan, who has since been indicted. He is not related to Jack Ryan. During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his sealed divorce records, assuring state officials there was nothing in the file to worry about. But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records' release, and a California judge ordered them unsealed. The couple fought to keep the records sealed, saying the release could harm their 9-year-old son. "The fact that the Chicago Tribune sues for access to sealed custody documents and then takes unto itself the right to publish details of a custody dispute - over the objections of two parents who agree that the re-airing of their arguments will hurt their ability to co-parent their child and hurt their child - is truly outrageous," he said. Although most party leaders abandoned Ryan, Fitzgerald said Friday that he had encouraged him to stay in the race. "I think the public stoning of Jack Ryan is one of the most grotesque things I've seen in politics," the senator said. He said the party's bigwigs pushed Ryan out: "It was like piranhas. They smelled blood in the water and they just devoured him." Ryan won the GOP primary by more than 10 percentage points over his two closest rivals, dairy owner James Oberweis and state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger. Both Oberweis and Rauschenberger said this week that they would step in as Ryan's replacement if party leaders asked. Other possible candidates mentioned include U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, former Gov. Jim Edgar and Sen. Fitzgerald, though all three have said they are not interested. Likewise, archived versions of U.S. newspapers that published the same AP wire story (such as the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Seattle Times) do not include lead-ins identifying Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born." San Diego Union-Tribune Seattle Times Lannan, Maura Kelly. "Illinois' Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid."
The Associated Press. 25 June 2004.