Comparison between Hiroshima and Detroit
The photo montage displayed above is one of dozens circulating online since 2009, purporting to demonstrate that 50-plus years of rule by the Democratic Party wrought a level of destruction on Detroit comparable to that caused by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Some versions have sought to make the case verbally, as well. For example:What has caused more long term destruction - the A-bomb, or Government welfare programs created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them? Japan does not have a welfare system. Work for it or do without. These are possibly the 5 best sentences youll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.   The comparison of 2010 Detroit to 1945 Hiroshima is grotesquely forced, however, as is the implication that Democratic policies are wholly to blame for the Detroit's decline since World War II. We'll start our analysis with the images, some of which are inaccurately labeled. Beginning with the upper left-hand photo, it is, in fact, an aerial view of the hypocenter (ground zero) of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, taken a few months after the fact. Here's a larger view of the image: hypocenter Working clockwise, the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima  except that it doesn't. It's actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan much like this one from Flickr: Flickr   That having been pointed out, it's true that Hiroshima was rebuilt from its ashes and is now a beautiful and modern city. Nor is it too terribly hard to find an actual photo of it. rebuilt photo The photo at bottom-right  though taken in 2013, not 2010  does show a dilapidated building (of which there are plenty) on the east side of Detroit. It's the former Packard Automotive Plant, which closed in the late 1950s: plenty closed   However, the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn't make the case. Lastly, we're shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday  except that it was taken in the mid-1930s. It's an aerial view of Navin Field (later Tiger Stadium): Navin Field   Granted, for the purposes of argument it doesn't really matter whether the above photo was taken in the '30s or '40s  the point remains that Detroit once had a teeming population, abundant jobs, and a booming economy. In 1950 it was the fourth-largest city in the United States, but no longer. The question is, who was responsible? There's no simple explanation (and therefore no single scapegoat at whom to point fingers) for Detroit's long, slow descent to bankruptcy. Scott Martelle, author of Detroit: A Biography, offered this capsule summary in an op-ed column published in 2011: column The collapse of Detroit has roots in intentional de-industrialization by the Big Three automakers, which in the 1950s began aggressively spider-webbing operations across the nation to produce cars closer to regional markets, and to reduce labor costs by investing in less labor-friendly places than union-heavy Detroit. Their flight was augmented by government policies that, in the 1970s and 1980s particularly, forced municipalities and states to compete with each other for jobs by offering corporate tax breaks and other inducements to keep or draw business investments, a bit of whipsawing that helped companies profit at the expense of communities. Another summary of Detroit's decline cited issues such as the city's dependence on a single industry (i.e., automobiles), decades of racial tensions, shortcomings of leadership (stretching back to the 1930s), and the lack of an efficient transit system. decline Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well. Detroit's decline since World War II took place during periods when both parties held the presidency and/or controlled Congress. Finally, the specific suggestion that Detroit's downfall was an unintended consequence of the spread of social welfare programs while Hiroshima's dramatic recovery is at least partially attributable to the lack of same in Japan is based on misinformation. Japan has maintained strong public health care and social welfare programs in one form or another since the 1920s. Yet Hiroshima was rebuilt and flourished just the same. maintained  Drury, Flora."A City Rebuilt from the Ashes."
Daily Mail Online.5 August 2015. Martelle, Scott."The Collapse of Detroit."
Los Angeles Times.27 March 2011. "Anatomy of Detroit's Decline."
New York Times.8 December 2013. "Zombieland: The Abandoned Buildings of Detroit."
Beaumont Enterprise.18 July 2013.
When it comes to illegal campaign cash, the wheels of justice move slowly. So when a May 2011 court filing brought fresh attention to old claims involving illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, Democrats jumped, airinga radio adin his Florida district. Congressman Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election, the narrator of the ad says. Tell Buchanan to come clean.The ad ran from June 13-17 and was paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It relied onnews articlesabouta lawsuit filedby theFederal Election Commissionagainst a business Buchanan once owned, the DCCC said.The 'old business' Buchanan, 60, is awealthy Republicanfrom Longboat Key serving his third term in Congress representing Florida's13th Congressional District. He built his wealth founding a chain of print shop franchises in Michigan, leaving for Florida in the 1980sas the chain struggledand investing in a range of new businesses, including Florida auto dealerships.One of those dealerships is at the heart of this claim.Buchanan had owned a majority interest in Hyundai of North Jacksonville,the FEC says, when his business partner Sam Kazran arranged for dealership employees and relatives to donate to the Vern Buchanan for Congress committee, then be reimbursed by the business. This went on during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the FEC says. (We should note that the date Buchanan legally parted ways with the dealership is a matter of disagreement.The FEC saysBuchanan owned 51 percent of the dealership until Kazran completed his purchase of Buchanan's stake to become the sole owner in 2008  after the suspect contributions were made. Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts says Buchanan sold the dealership to Kazran in 2005, putting more distance between the congressman and the illegal contributions. )What's the big deal with reimbursing contributions? It violates federal election law, which says (n)o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person. The Federal Election Campaign Act also limits how much a single contributor may give to candidates' campaign committees. Funneling cash through employees would have made it possible for the dealership to bust through that limit.The Buchanan campaign said they brought the questionable contributions to the attention of the FEC, which then launched the investigation. We can't independently confirm if that's the case, because the FEC does not comment on open cases. However, we found no evidence to the contrary. The commission combined the complaint withone filed in 2008 by a Washington groupand two employees of a Venice dealership, which you canread more about here. The FEC investigated,finding probable causeto believe that the Hyundai dealership and Kazran had illegally reimbursed $67,900 in campaign contributions, but it didn't go after Buchanan.Instead, it's now seeking $67,900 in fines from Kazran.Kazran, for his part,admits reimbursingcampaign contributions, but told theBradenton Heraldhe did it at Buchanan's direction. I've been caught in this political nightmare that I have nothing to do with, he told PolitiFact Florida. But he failed to reach an agreement with the Federal Election Commission  andfailed to respond to the complainton behalf of Hyundai North Jacksonville, which is no longer in business. That means facts in the case stand uncontested. So the commission voted to sue him to collect the fines, asking a judge for a default judgement.The FEC told the U.S. District Court that the dealership illegally spent $67,900 in an attempt to influence an election for Congress, presumably believing this to be a worthwhile investment. And that's the May suit that prompted stories in aWSJ.com blog, theSarasota Herald-Tribuneand theBradenton Heraldthat the DCCC cited as it released the script for its Florida radio ad. Jesse Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the committee, theofficial campaign armof the Democrats in the U.S. House, used partial quotes from the lawsuit when he said, The FEC is seeking fines from a business that Vern Buchanan owned at the time for an 'extensive and ongoing scheme' of 'secret illegal contributions' to help his campaign and were going to make sure his constituents know about it.Buchanan's responseWhat does Buchanan's team say? That the FEC has cleared Buchanan himself  so the ad linking the behavior of Kazran and his dealership to the congressman is misleading and dishonest.It creates the false impression that Vern Buchanan has done something wrong when in fact he has been fully exonerated by the FEC, said Sally Tibbetts, his spokeswoman.Arelated news releasethat says Buchanan has been completely exonerated is the subject of its own fact-check, andwe found the claim to be Barely True. But we'll summarize here by saying that what little information is available so far from the FEC doesn't fully clear Buchanan  though it does mean the commission won't take any further action against him in the case.Information's limited because the case isn't yet closed, soconfidentiality rulesapply.That means for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll rely on what's in the public record  information that the DCCC had access to when it scripted its ad.The rulingThat ad starts by naming the congressman, then says his old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election.The FEC and Buchanan's team agree that he owned a significant stake until at least 2005, when suspect campaign contributions started. The FEC says the dealership reimbursed more than $60,000 in contributions. The money went to Buchanan's main campaign committee, and the FEC says the money was spent in an attempt to influence an election for Congress.What is contested is Buchanan's role in the scheme.The FEC has said it will take no further action against him, closing his file. But it didn't go further to declare it had no probable cause to believe he was involved  which would have better supported his team's claim that he's been cleared. Meanwhile, his former business partner still says Buchanan put him up to it, and says he plans another lawsuit to prove it.While we think the DCCC could have done a better job noting it was Buchanan who turned in the illegal contributions, we rate this ad 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 To prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, state leaders across the U.S. ordered widespread school closures in March 2020. In the weeks that followed, millions of students spent their days at home instead of in classrooms. Some teachers and staff moved lessons online, and administrators locked the doors to school buildings so the general public could not enter. COVID-19  The closures were among the most dramatic steps by state leaders to combat the novel coronavirus that has killed more than 58,300 people globally as of this writing in mid-April 2020. About 56.6 million students registered for elementary or secondary school classes in the U.S. at the start of the 2019-20 academic year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.  58,300 people National Center for Education Statistics While a disruption to students' learning, the shutdowns in America may have provided an unintended benefit, beyond limiting people's exposure to the virus. On April 13, 2020, a journalist tweeted to his some 49,600 followers: "Last month was the first March without a school shooting in the United States since 2002." tweeted   The reporter, Robert Klemko, quickly gained Twitter popularity among Americans who believe federal and state leaders should enact stricter gun laws, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "It shouldn't have taken a pandemic to make this possible," her Twitter account wrote in a retweet of Klemko's post. Hillary Clinton Meanwhile, Facebook users shared screenshots of Klemko's tweet, and one Instagram account for a website that brands itself as a fact-checking service on that platform posted a photograph of a law-enforcement officer monitoring students boarding a school bus with Klemko's claim as overlay text. Among media sites, CBS News published a story stating the assertion as fact. one Instagram account website sites CBS News published a story   "My teens said this is the first time they have relaxed. No need to be hyper vigilant of every unusual sound, can just focus on school work," one person tweeted. "Both grew up with regular Active Shooter Drills since kindergarten." one person tweeted The claim about school shootings since 2002 is twofold: It asserts that no school shootings occurred in the U.S. in March 2020 and that every March between 2003 and 2019 documented at least one such incident. But because agencies across government and the news media do not share a consistent way for tracking and defining school shootings, the truth of both assertions depends on whom you ask. The U.S. Secret Service and FBI, for example, provide an explanation of factors that contribute to school shootings but do not keep a running list of all on-campus gun crimes. Academics and school officials often rely on news media reports for their research, though journalists may not cover every shooting. U.S. Secret Service FBI The nation's biggest guns-rights group, the National Rifle Association, does not publish a running tally of shootings in schools, yet it has convened researchers to compile recommendations on how to avoid such incidents, like other organizations. Meanwhile, a leading opponent of the NRA  the lobbyist group Everytown for Gun Safety  has tracked all "incidents of gunfire" in K-12 schools and colleges, including suicides; shootings in which no one suffered injuries; and cases where the victims or gunmen may not have any connection to the school, since 2013. National Rifle Association recommendations Everytown for Gun Safety Those prominent advocacy groups aside, the least partisan and most comprehensive source of school-shooting data appears to be the "K-12 School Shooting Database" sponsored by the U.S. Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Updated daily by emergency-management researchers, the database records "each and every instance in which a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week," according to its stated methodology. Its website summarizes the tricky situation analyzing school-shooting data as follows: CHDS FEMA methodology. Without a common methodology for data collection, individual data sources are limited in both validity and utility. Furthermore, there is no consensus for what actually defines a school shooting ... Based on the differences among all available reporting platforms, there is currently no single source for objective and accessible data from which school administrators, law enforcement, and public officials can draw to inform their decisions.  With that as background, administrators of the CHDS-sponsored K-12 database documented eight incidents fitting its definition of a "school shooting" in March 2020. Local news media reports affirm those findings. The incidents include: The Dallas Morning News The Miami Herald The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Local coverage here Local coverage here Local coverage here Local coverage here The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Regarding the claim that March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting since 2002, the data is more murky. The CHDS-sponsored database lists at least one incident in U.S. K-12 schools in March of every year from 2003 through 2009, and every year from 2011 through 2020, but none in 2010. Supporting that finding, tallies of K-12 school shootings by the for-profit National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm and the advocacy group the National School Safety Center do not show a March 2010 incident. tallies National School Safety and Security Services National School Safety Center However, those sources only consider shootings on U.S. elementary, middle and high school properties. If you expand the scope of research to also include shootings on college campuses, Ohio State University documented a deadly shooting on March 9, 2010. According to the New York Times' coverage of the incident, officials said a custodian of the school shot and killed a co-worker before killing himself in a maintenance building. Another person was wounded in the gunfire.  coverage We reached out to Washington Post reporter Klemko  the author of the viral claim  to understand where he got his numbers. He said he did include cases involving post-secondary institutions, rather than only focusing on K-12 schools. But unlike other datasets, he said he only considered shootings in which students, teachers, or staff were the targets of the gunfire or the perpetrators. In other words, he said he did not consider cases where people trespassed on school property and opened fire at other people who aren't part of the school community. He also did not consider cases in which persons (no matter their affiliation with the school) accidentally discharged a gun or shootings on school properties outside of school hours or on weekends. "I used shootings on school property, k-12, vocational schools, colleges and universities, where students or staff were intentionally shot at, or doing the shooting," he wrote in an email. "Where government and private data were inconclusive, news reports filled the gaps." Looking at the comprehensive standards by which the CHDS-sponsored database documents shootings, he said "it's a mistake" to consider the database's definition of a "school shooting" as the most fair. "Few Americans would agree, for example, that an incident where a safety officer accidentally fires a gun in an office, injuring no one, constitutes a school shooting," he said. "Likewise, few would agree that adults trespassing on school grounds and exchanging gunfire when school is not in session and no children are present, is a school shooting." In sum, given the absence of a universal definition of "school shooting" in the U.S., and given that a government database and news media reports show at least eight shootings did occur on school properties in March 2020, we rate this claim as "false". Simone Burns, Asia. "3 in hospital after shooting in DeKalb elementary school parking lot".
 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 31 March 2020. KNOE 8 News. "Monroe Police have made multiple arrests in connection to a parking lot shooting at Roy Shelling Elementary School".
 24 March 2020.  KTBS 3 ABC. "Shreveport high school parking lot shooting, 1 wounded".
 19 March 2020. McCord, Cory. "Man wanted, accused of deadly shooting during pickup football game at Atascocita HS".
  KHOU 11. 15 March 2020. London, Derry. "SRO accidentally fires gun inside elementary school".
 News 4. 13 March 2020. Lee, Lauren. "None hurt, suspect in custody after bullet strikes school van in Shenango".
 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 10 March 2020. Smalls II, Isaiah. "He brought a gun to school. He ended up shooting the maintenance man in the eye, cops say".
 Miami Herald. 6 March 2020. Scudder, Charles. "Student in custody after gun was 'accidentally discharged' at North Forney High School".
 The Dallas Morning News. 2 March 2020. Purdum, Todd. "Shooting at School Leaves 2 Dead and 13 Hurt".
 The New York Times. 6 March 2001. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service. "Protecting America's Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence".
 Accessed 16 April 2020. Federal Bureau of Investigations. "The School Shooter: A Thread Assessment Perspective".
 Accessed 16 April 2020. The Washington Post. "Robert Klemko".
 Accessed 14 April 2020. Education Week. "Map: Coronavirus and School Closures".
 13 April 2020. National Center for Education Statistics. "Fast Facts".
 Accessed 14 April 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Medicine. "Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering."
 Accessed 14 April 2020. Lewis, Sophie. "March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting in the U.S. since 2020".
 CBS News. 14 April 2020. Riedman, David, and Desmond ONeill. "CHDS  K-12 School Shooting Database".
 Center for Homeland Defense and Security. 15 April 2020. Hutchinson, Asa. "The National School Shield: Report of the National School Shield Task Force".
 National Rifle Association. 2 April 2013. Everytown for Gun Safety. "Gunfire on School Grounds in the United States".
 Accessed 16 April 2020. Riedman, David, and Desmond ONeill. CHDS  K-12 School Shooting Database."
 Center for Homeland Defense and Security. 16 April 2020. Riedman, David, and Desmond ONeill. CHDS  K-12 School Shooting Database."
 Center for Homeland Defense and Security. 16 April 2020. National School Safety Center.  The National School Safety Centers Report on School Associated Violent Deaths.
 Accessed 16 April 2020. National School Safety Center.  The National School Safety Centers Report on School Associated Violent Deaths.
 Accessed 16 April 2020. National School Safety and Security Services.  School-related deaths, school shootings, & school violence incidents: 2009- 2010 School Year Incidents Identified by National School Safety and Security Services, Inc.
 Accessed 16 April 2020. National School Safety and Security Services.  School-related deaths, school shootings, & school violence incidents: 2009- 2010 School Year Incidents Identified by National School Safety and Security Services, Inc.
 Accessed 16 April 2020. Urbina, Ian.  Ohio State Employee Kills Co-Worker, Then Self, Police Say.
  The New York Times.  9 March 2010. Urbina, Ian.  Ohio State Employee Kills Co-Worker, Then Self, Police Say.
  The New York Times.  9 March 2010. Claim:  Historian David Kaiser or Timothy Wood penned an article cautioning that "Something of historic proportions is happening." INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] David Kaiser Location: Jamestown , Rhode Island , United States For the past thirty years I have been a historian of international and domestic politics, as well as an authority on some of the more famous criminal cases in American history. For the past four years I have been commenting on current events. History Unfolding I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.  Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why? We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why? We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose? Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking  about)  the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palins pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.) Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning. And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media  did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ... change. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years  a shorter time span than just two terms of the U.S. presidency  it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them. As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me. Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believeand why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Origins:   The Internet piece quoted above originally began circulating just after the U.S. presidential election of November 2008, and by March 2009 it had picked up an attribution crediting it to David Kaiser, a historian who has authored a number of books, including The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.  However, as Mr. Kaiser told us and notes in his blog, History Unfolding, he did not pen this piece: History Unfolding The first two sentences, beginning, "For the past thirty years," were of course written by me; the rest of the email was not written by me. Its views are in many ways the opposite of my own. This item has also been mistakenly attributed to Dr. Timothy L. Wood, an Assistant Professor of History at Southwest Baptist University.  Like David Kaiser, Dr. Wood told us that he did not write the piece and pointed us to a blog entry disclaiming his authorship. blog The original is also commonly attributed to Pamela Geller, having appeared in her Atlas Shrugs blog on 13 November 2008.  However, Ms. Geller notes in her introductory statement that "I wish I had written it" and indicates it originated as a reader comment posted to yet another blog. Atlas Shrugs As far as we know, this piece began as a comment posted to Pat Dollard's blog in November 2008 by an author identified only as "TPS." blog TPS Last updated:  7 April 2009 On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document  Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income:   Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500):   If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%.  A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara.  "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
  MarketWatch.  7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven.  "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
  The Washington Post.  23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive.  "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria  Stock Price Skyrockets."
  Bipartisan Report.  7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill.  "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
  Palmer Report.  7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom.  "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
  TheStreet.  7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy.  "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
  The Atlantic.  7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland.  "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter.  "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
  Scribd.  22 July 2015  (page 37). The Dallas Morning News.  "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
  14 June 2016  (page 37). When we human folk exchange information about each other, age is one of the most important pieces of data we pass along.  Knowing someone's age immediately allows us to infer a great deal of information about that person with a reasonable degree of certainty: Age not only tells us whether someone is a child, an adult, or an elderly person, but it allows us to place people into much finer gradations of categories  infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, middle-aged, elderly  from which we can deduce a good deal about their physical, psychological, and social statuses.   We know a 4-year-old child should be walking, but a 6-month-old baby is unlikely to be capable of the feat.  We understand a couple of 16-year-olds might well have a baby together, but an 8-year-old boy is generally too young to father one and a 58-year-old woman is usually too old to conceive one.  We're aware most 9-year-olds haven't yet reached puberty, but a 39-year-old might well have started experiencing many of the infirmities of advanced age (e.g., lessened eyesight, loss of hearing, weight gain, persistent aches and pains).  We grasp that a 29-year-old is in what we would term "the prime of life," while an 89-year-old has well exceeded the average human lifespan.  We can make pretty good guesses from a person's age about whether he's old enough to have finished his schooling, live away from his parents, be married, or hold an important professional position, or whether he's too old to still be working or raising children of his own.  And even those of us who still have most of our lives ahead of us know all this. When it comes to our pets, however, many of us are mystified how to relate their ages to ours.  Sure, knowledgeable owners and breeders may be quite familiar with all the developmental stages of their chosen animals, but many of us casual pet owners can't do much more than distinguish between "puppy," "dog," and "old dog."  At what age are kittens weaned from their mothers?  What's the average lifespan of a dog?  When is a cat old enough to reproduce, and when is a dog too old to bear a litter?   Is an 8-year-old dog in the prime of life, or is he closer to middle age? Lacking a good deal of observational experience, many of us simply don't know. Since knowledge and experience take time and effort to acquire, we've developed simple shortcuts to help us answer these questions, such as the well-known formula for "dog years": multiply your dog's age by seven, and you'll have his equivalent age in human terms.  Although this formula might work roughly well for the middle years of a dog's life, it's too simplistic to accurately reflect a dog's developmental status closer to either end of its lifespan.  Using this calculation, for example, an 18-month-old dog would be at a developmental stage similar to a 10-year-old child's, but while many 18-month-old dogs are fully grown and capable of reproducing, few 10-year-old children are.  The "dog years" measurement tells us a 15-year-old dog is supposed to be the equivalent of a 105-year-old person, but (factoring out accidents and other unnatural causes of death) a much larger proportion of dogs live to the age of 15 than humans live to the age of 105.  As well, age is more than just a chronological measurement of years lived; it's also an expression of how our bodies have been affected by the passage of time.  Different types of animals age at different rates, so we can't employ a simple, direct, proportional relationship to correlate the ages of species as disparate as dogs and humans, especially since variable factors such as genetics, nutrition, and environment play an important role in the aging process. The bottom line is just as we wouldn't raise a litter of puppies or kittens the same way we'd raise a baby, neither should we care for our pets based on how old we think they'd be if they were people.  For those who would like a rough idea of how the ages of our canine and feline friends compare to ours (strictly for entertainment purposes), we present the following charts courtesy of ANTECH:   ANTECH Dog Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years4 years 32 years7 years 45 years10 years 56 years15 years 76 years20 years 98 years     Cat Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years5 years 36 years7 years 45 years12 years 64 years15 years 76 years18 years 88 years21 years 100 years However, smaller dog breeds tend to live longer on average than larger breeds, so no single chart can adequately represent all dogs with much accuracy.  Therefore a better charting of equivalent ages is one based on the weight of the animal: Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 In July 2023, a series of imageswent viral depicting elderly women with what appeared to begiant crocheted cats. went viral  The images were reposted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and 9GAG, gaining millions of views. We also found them on Chinese and Russian-speaking websites. Facebook Twitter Instagram Reddit 9GAG Chinese Russian The pictures in question were originally posted on July 3, 2023, by Instagram account @ai.artandcat. In the bio section of that profile, we found a link to aFacebook pagetitled, "Lydia's AI Art and Cats," with a user namedLydia Masterova marked as the page's owner. Masterova had a history online of sharing AI-generated pictures. posted @ai.artandcat page  Wywietl ten post na Instagramie  Post udostpniony przez Cats and art (@ai.artandcat) Post udostpniony przez Cats and art (@ai.artandcat)  Masterova's images of crocheted cats had telltale signs of being generated by artificial intelligence (AI) software. For instance, the women in the photographs had abnormally large hands or an incorrect number of toes. Each picture depicted an elderly lady with white hair; however, the women did not appear to be the same person as various characteristics, such as their hairstyles and eyeglasses, varied significantly.   (Instagram account @ai.artandcat)   (Instagram account @ai.artandcat) AI-detection tools, such as AI or Not and IIlluminarty, confirmed the images were created using artificial intelligence software. Therefore, we have rated this claim as "Fake." AI or Not IIlluminarty In July 2023, Masterova shared a message via herInstagramaccount and Facebook page thatintroduced herself and explained that she started creating AI-generated content to distract herself from the war in Ukraine, which is where she is from: Instagram Facebook Here's a bit about me (and giant crochet cats). My name is Lydia, and I'm from Ukraine ??. A couple of months ago, to distract myself from the horrors of war, I immersed myself in the imaginative world of AI. Before that, I was a cat photographer and had always loved cats and animals in general, so it was only natural to start with them. At first, I incorporated cats into paintings by famous artists, hence the word "art" in my page name. However, I soon realized that almost everyone had already drawn the Mona Lisa with a cat or as a cat. Then, I attempted to draw hybrids of cats and other animals, but AI struggled to achieve that.When my parents, family, and friends in Ukraine were under bombing, I thought posting random stuff on my Facebook account was inappropriate, so I created a new page and Instagram account.And now, let's talk about these giant crocheted cats! She said her passion for various crafts inspired her to create the images of crocheted items. Since posting the images, she acknowledged they have circulated online without proper attribution, or disclaimers to note that they're not real. In the Instagram and Facebook post, she said she did not write captions for her original posts sharing the AI-generated images because"it's considered a bad form to use watermarks" in online groups dedicated to such content, and she did not have access to a computer to do so.The message continued: I used to do lots of various crafts, from crocheting and knitting to sewing soft toys. Now, I draw whatever comes to my mind first. During my vacation in early July, these crocheted cats were born. In AI groups, it's considered a bad form to use watermarks. It was very late at night, and I couldn't access a computer, so I posted them on my page and in the Midjourney Cat group without a caption. By morning, I found that the images had spread across various pages and groups. People from Europe, Asia, Australia, and even South Africa write to me saying they find these cats in crochet groups. I never posted them as actual crochet, and unfortunately, I can't do anything about it. Every day, I come across posts with titles like "My 80-year-old grandma finally finished her cat," and so on. Someone even posted it on National Geographic. When I tried to message them, 90% didn't reply, and a couple of times, I received rude responses, claiming that since it's AI, I have no rights to these images. But a few pages did credit me in their posts, though still with headlines not of my creation. Lesson learned. Now, I'll always add captions. The cat photographs aside,most of Masterova's images on Facebook and Instagram appeared tohavea watermark, including a series of elderly women riding what appeared to be crocheted motorcycles. That series was captioned, "Badass grandmas on their crochet bikes." most have   (Facebook page Lydia's AI Art and Cats) Masterova said the viral crochet images have brought her new attention online, including from people who do not like her work: Before the crochet cats, I had around 100 followers, and now the haters have come. Some send me to hell, others wish for my hard drive to burn, and some think using AI is stealing from real artists. It's just a hobby. I don't sell anything. I don't make money. I simply come up with nonexistent things, using my imagination. If someone doesn't like it, they can always scroll past it. AsAI-generated content becomes more prevalent on social media, it's worth knowing how to spot such images. We encourage you to read our tips. AI-generated read our tips During ongoing national debate over a novel policy of separating families at the border, a photograph circulated (originally from Joshua Feuerstein, a self-styled "American evangelist, Internet and social media personality" who last made headlines in 2015 when he manufactured a so-called "Christmas cup controversy") that purportedly depicted a room full of immigrant children that former President Barack Obama had supposedly removed from their parents' custody: novel policy a photograph circulated self-styled Christmas cup controversy immigrant children The attached text read:As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #shareSome versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image:Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States:The meme's text read:INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOOHey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!!The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities:Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo:Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year.The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others.Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base:The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration.  The attached text read: As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #share Some versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image: Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States: described   The meme's text read: INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP 140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOO Hey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!! The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities: published Breitbart Breitbart unaccompanied Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil. The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo: National Review Immigration Bedlam Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year. The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others. widely reported Houston Chronicle Splinter News Los Angeles Times Mashable Reuters Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base: The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care. ... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported. Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration. family separation DeRuy, Emily and Jorge Rivas.  "Disturbing Photos Allegedly Show Texas Border Patrol Facility Packed With Immigrant Children."
  Splinter.  6 June 2014. Darby, Brandon.  "Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused In Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed."
  Breitbart.  5 June 2014. Hennessy-Fiske, Molly.  "Hundreds Of Migrant Youths Held At Texas Military Base."
  Los Angeles Times.  5 June 2014. Murdock, Deroy.  "Immigration Bedlam."
  National Review.   13 June 2014. Parker, Kolten.  "Leaked Photos Show Immigrant Children Packed In Crowded Texas Border Facilities."
  Houston Chronicle.  6 June 2014. Roug, Louise.  "How The U.S. Border Became A Humanitarian Crisis."
  Mashable.  8 July 2014. Reuters.  "U.S. To Open Third Military Base To Illegal Child Immigrants."
  9 June 2014 On 30 December 2018, News Punch, a junk news website with a long history of spreading misinformation, published an article reporting that 10,800 American children had been raped by illegal immigrants during 2018: "The number of U.S. children raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 was a staggering 10,800, according to data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement)." News Punch misinformation This claim has multiple dubious aspects, starting with the NCFIRE data. NCFIRE purports to compile "monthly child rape reports" covering sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants in North Carolina. Our inspection of their data, however, turned up a number of issues. For starters, while the data were compiled under the title "monthly child rape reports," the supporting documents actually included a variety of sex-related crimes, such as possession of child pornography and "indecent liberties with a child," that aren't rape. We also found one individual who was included in the 2018 report even though he raped a child in 2011. That person presumably was included in the 2018 report because of an arrest that year for failing to report an address change. report In addition to including outdated charges and crimes other than rape in the "monthly child rape reports," NCFIRE also appears to be counting arrests, not convictions. In other words, a number of individuals included in these reports have only been accused of crimes, and the charges against them may be dropped or found to be unsupported at trial. Furthermore, while some entries on this list link to genuine reports from ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the majority of entries include links to news reports or mugshot pages that make no mention of immigration status. Although this group claims that they "verify the illegal alien status of each individual we post in our Monthly Child Rape reports through the arresting agency of each individual," a spokesperson for the Raleigh Police Department told us that they "were not familiar" with NCFIRE.  Despite the multiple problems with the rape reporting, News Punch used these statistics to come up with their 10,800 figure: Meanwhile, data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement) reveals that the state of North Carolina has arrested an average of 18 illegal aliens every month this year for the crime of child rape. Statistically, this means that the 50 states in America are on track to arrest 10,800 illegal aliens for raping children in 2018. And that 10,800 figure is a bare-minimum, super-generous, giving-the-illegal-alien-child-rapists-the-benefit-of-the-doubt number. A total of 10,800 arrests assumes that each illegal alien child rapist only rapes one child in America. Many will rape three, four, or a dozen before they are caught, so the "true" number could be in the 30,000 to 40,000 raped children range. The claim that 10,800 children in the U.S. were raped by illegal immigrants did not originate with a law enforcement agency, government body, or other reputable crime-tracking source. Rather, an average figure pulled from questionable data compiled by one group in one state was extrapolated to the entirety of the U.S. without basis. That number also doesn't square with what we know about the criminal activities of illegal immigrants or the statistics for sexual abuse against children. Although the 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report does not specifically list crimes against children, it does shed some light on the number of sexual crimes committed by illegal immigrants. According to the ICE report, 5,350 charges or convictions of sexual assault were levied against illegal immigrants during the 2018 fiscal year. Another 6,888 charges or convictions relating to sexual offenses (not involving assault) were also recorded: Report Table 1 tallies all pending criminal charges and convictions by category for those aliens administratively arrested in FY2018 and lists those categories with at least 1,000 combined charges and convictions present in this population. These figures are representative of the criminal history as it is entered in the ICE system of record for individuals administratively arrested. Each administrative arrest may represent multiple criminal charges and convictions, as many of the aliens arrested by ERO are recidivist criminals.   The claim that 10,800 American children were raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 is also implausible due to the fact that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children are committed by parents or relatives, as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) reported in 2016: RAINN Out of the yearly 63,000 sexual abuse cases substantiated, or found [by] strong evidence, by Child Protective Services (CPS), the perpetrator was most often the parent: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  "ICE Arrests Fugitive Alien in NC Wanted on Multiple Maryland Rape Charges."
  18 October 2018.  Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.  "Child Sexual Abuse Is a Widespread Problem."
  Retrieved 9 January 2019. Adl-Tabatabai, Sean.  "10,800 U.S. Children Were Raped by Illegal Immigrants in 2018."
  News Punch.  30 December 2018. WRAL.  "Moore County Man Charged with Raping Child."
  1 January 2001. Updated [15 January 2019]: Added quote from Raleigh Police Department spokesperson. Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who "fortuitously" called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who "fortuitously" bought "put options" on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards. workers stock American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event: Larry Silverstein Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000. While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it's also partly fiction  most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word "fortuitous," that Silverstein's decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.  There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he "chose" to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike. It's important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn't actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out. Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of "terrorism insurance coverage," what we're actually speaking of is coverage that doesn't have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren't uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There's no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn't routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001. covered Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or "fortuitous," therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy  which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage  two months before 9/11, because that's when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn't even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer. report It's a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It's also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, "occurrences"), not one. But this wasn't some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein's court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority. estimated obligations The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single "occurrence" by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought. payout Ackman, Dan.  "Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground."   Forbes.  11 September 2003. Bagli, Charles V. "Final Vote Set on Silverstein's Towers at Ground Zero."   The New York Times (City Room Blog).  25 August 2010. Frangos, Alex.  "Uncertainties Soar at Ground Zero."   The Wall Street Journal.  20 October 2004. Frankel, Alison.  "Double Indemnity."   The American Lawyer.  3 September 2002. Hirschkorn, Phil and Jonathan Wald.  "Verdict in 9/11 Insurance Battle."   CNN.  30 April 2004. Lieberman, Joseph.  "America Needs Terrorism Insurance."   Forbes.  12 July 2005. Sorkin, Andrew and Simon Romero.  "A Day of Terror: The Insurers; Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damages."   The New York Times.  12 September 2001. Insurance Information Institute.  "Terrorism Risk and Insurance."   August 2016. Insurance Journal.  "Court Upholds Juries' Rulings in World Trade Center Claims."   19 October 2006. Reuters. "WTC Attack to Cost Insurers Billions."   11 September 2001.