Is This Photo of a Baby Albino Bat Real?
In May 2021, a set of photographs supposedly showing a baby albino bat was widely circulated on social media.  set of photographs   The "animal" seen here isn't an animal at all. This is actually a small plush doll.  This doll appears to have been made by Anna Yastrezhembovskya, an artist from Russia who sells similar figurines on her Etsy page. We haven't been able to find a listing for this specific item, but Yastrezhembovskya did share several photos of this plush albino baby bat doll to her Instagram in October 2019. Etsy page   In June 2020, Yastrezhembovskya posted a message on her Instagram explaining that some fraudulent websites were claiming that they were selling the doll. Yastrezhembovskya's work, however, is only available via her Etsy page: Again!!! ? Scammers still cant calm down and again steal my photos. Now they are selling the white bat. They use my photos, but theyre sending to buyers another things. Scroll through the photo to see an example of what they are sending. I want to warn everyone, I sell my works ONLY in the store on Etsy - a link in the profile, or in the instagram. All other stores and stuff are SCAMMERS!!! Please be careful. Do not be fooled. Yastrezhembovskya talked to MyModernMet.com about her work in 2019. The Russian artist said that she primarily works in felt and that these figurines typically take 12-14 hours to make: MyModernMet.com Yastrezhembovskya said: My first toy wasnt nearly as pretty, it was rather funny but I enjoyed the process so much that I kept trying. I was felting during my free time, even at night, and I got better with each toy I made ... I am flattered that my bats won the hearts of so many people, but the amount of orders I got was terrifying ... Of course, I will keep felting as many bats as I can, but I want people to understand that these toys are fully handmade, so its a fairly lengthy process. The internet has a relatively difficult time determining the difference between dolls and genuine real-world animals, apparently. Photographs of figurines featuring albino tarantulas, four-eyed goats, tiny birds, giant moths, and adorable bunnies have all been shared on social media as if they were real animals.  albino tarantulas four-eyed goats tiny birds giant moths adorable bunnies
Within 24 hours of the deaths of a New Jersey couple, dubious web sites seized on the tragedy as fodder for their latest round of conspiracy theory-driven content. On 7 July 2018, 72-year-old Carole Paladino and her 73-year-old husband Jon Paladino were killed when their Newfield, New Jersey, home exploded. killed The next day conspiracy-minded sites, citing "4Chan and 8Chan users," published stories promoting the claim that Carole Paladino, a retired school nurse, was "due to testify" in a grand jury investigation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:   The dubious alleged connection here is a two-year old controversy over Mylan Pharmaceuticals (who donated somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation) having increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400% over the course of several years -- something Hillary Clinton herself criticized the company over: controversy Over the last several years, Mylan Pharmaceuticals has increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400%. Theyre now charging up to $600 for a two-EpiPen set that must be replaced every 12-18 months. This both increases out-of-pocket costs for families and first responders, and contributes to higher premiums for all Americans and their employers, Clinton said in a statement released to reporters by her campaign. Thats outrageous  and its just the latest troubling example of a company taking advantage of its consumers ... [I]ts wrong when drug companies put profits ahead of patients, raising prices without justifying the value behind them Given that John Paladino worked at a funeral home and Carole Paladino was a retired school nurse, it's unlikely that either of them would have been testifying before a grand jury about the operations of a large pharmaceutical company. Moreover, prosecutors in Gloucester County have told news outlets (and reiterated to us) that foul play is not suspected in the Paladinos' deaths, so any "news" story attempting to link their demise to a deliberate and furtive criminal plot to keep the couple from testifying against Hillary Clinton is merely another iteration of the "Clinton body bag" rumor that has been disseminated online since Clinton's husband, Bill, was president back in the 1990s. outlets Clinton body bag Melamed, Samantha et al.  "Two Dead in New Jersey House Explosion: 'It Was a Huge Ball of Fire.'"
  Philadelphia Inquirer.  7 July 2018. Everett, Rebecca.  "Retired School Nurse, Husband Killed in Earth-Shaking House Explosion."
  NJ.com.  7 July 2018. Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 In 2015, a Snopes reader emailed us, asking: Did Kanye West actually say: 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and soself-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a booksautograph. I am a proud non-reader of books.'  OnFeb. 13,2015, the website for the UK version ofMarie Clairemagazine published an article titled 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us. The collection of Wests comments was curated in response to the rappers behavior on the evening of the57th AnnualGrammy Awards, particularly his rant about musician Beck as the latter received the Album of the Year award. Among Wests collected quotes, one in particular stood out. It concerned Kanyes feelings on the matter of books and reading in general, and many readers questioned whether the quote was genuine: Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West: Reuters article Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read. Wests derision of books comes despite the fact that his late mother, Donda West, was a university English professor before she retired to manage his music career. She died in 2007 of complications following cosmetic surgery. 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,' West said. 'I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. 'I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life,' he said. Egan, Mark.  Proud Non-Reader Kanye West Turns Author. Reuters. 5 May 2009.  Ramsdale, Susannah.  21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us.Marie Claire. 13 February 2015. At the Texas Republican Partys 2012 convention, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin told the crowd that the high stakes in Novembers election include American jobs.If the amount of Americans were in the workforce today like they were when President Obama took office, the labor force participation rate, our unemployment rate would be 11 percent today, the House Budget Committee chairman said in his keynote speech June 9, 2012.We decided to check.First, we defined our terms.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the U.S. labor force participation rate by taking the total workforce -- people who are employed or job-hunting -- and dividing by the total civilian population aged 16 or older. (People in military, medical or penal institutions are excluded. )The general unemployment rate, which is the one most people are familiar with, expresses how many people in the labor force are unemployed.Generally, climbs and dips in the general unemployment rate are a reasonable indicator that more Americans are losing jobs or getting hired, respectively. But in times of recession, high numbers of workers simply stop looking for jobs. Common reasons they give are retirement, disability, going to school or caring for household members,according toresearchers at the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank who drew on federal data.But when adults stop looking for work, the overall workforce shrinks, which can have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate -- which could lead to erroneous conclusions about U.S. economic conditions.To counteract that effect, the BLS also calculates what it calls the U-6 unemployment rate, which folds in people who stopped job-hunting and people who took part-time jobs for economic reasons. Since the U-6 rate was first published in 1994, its three highest points have all accompaniedrecessions, first in 1990-91, then 2001 and most recently 2007-09.Of late, Republicans have taken to highlighting this distinction, as Ryan does here.His claim can be restated this way: If the same percentage of Americans were employed or looking for work inMay 2012as in January 2009, general unemployment would have been 11 percent instead of 8.2 percent.We asked Ryans office for his backup materials, and spokesman Kevin Seifert sent us data, calculations and supporting news coverage.Seifert told us by email thataccording to the BLS, the January 2009 workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent, while the May 2012 rate was 63.8 percent. Applying those to the May 2012 population of 243 million, he said, gives a labor force of 159.6 million at the first rate and 155 million at the latter rate.Subtracting the real labor force (155 million) from the hypothetical labor force (159.6 million) shows that 4.6 million more people would actively be seeking work right now instead of being characterized as discouraged, etc., he wrote.Adding 4.6 million unemployed workers to the May 2012 unemployment count, which was 12.7 million, would give a total 17.3 million unemployed, Seifert said. Then, 17.3 million unemployed people divided by 155 million would give a general unemployment rate of 11.2 percent, Seifert said.We checked thenumbersand math for ourselves, then asked Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based regional economist for the labor bureau, for help analyzing the calculations. It looked to us like Ryan should have divided by the hypothetical labor force, rather than the real May 2012 labor force (to correctly describe the unemployment rate of the larger, hypothetical group), and Abbot agreed. But neither that distinction nor small differences due to causes such as rounding off numbers seriously affected the result.Accepting the assumption that all 4.6 million adults added to the labor force would be unemployed -- and using BLS figures that were not rounded off as much as the ones Seifert used to describe his math to us -- Abbot got a result of 10.9 percent.Our rulingThe general unemployment rate in June 2012 would have been 10.9 percent if the labor force participation rate had remained at the 65.5 percent in place when Obama became president. Thats about 11 percent.We rate Ryans statement True. The sculpture pictured below is real, and it was indeed crafted by an Iraqi sculptor from bronze recovered by melting down statues of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the accompanying explanatory text is quite misleading: The Iraqi sculptor was not "forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam," he did not produce the memorial shown because he was "so grateful that the Americans liberated his country," and the monument was not his idea. Members of the U.S. Army paid the sculptor, who had previously worked on a few other Saddam statues, to create the work pictured according to a design of their choosing: Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] This picture of the statue was made by an Iraqi artist named Kalat, who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad. This artist was so grateful that the Americans liberated his country, he melted 3 of the fallen Saddam heads and made a memorial statue dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades. Kalat worked on this night and day for several months. To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms. It is currently on display outside the palace that is now home to the 4th Infantry division. It will eventually be shipped and shown at the memorial museum in Fort Hood, Texas.  As part of the U.S. Army's Task Force Ironhorse, the 4th Infantry Division was deployed in Iraq for most of 2003, participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, and saw many of their comrades killed and wounded in the violence that followed the end of major combat operations. In mid-2003, while the 4th Infantry Division was headquartered in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown, Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Fuss, the division's top noncommissioned officer, headed up a project to commemorate the unit's dead and conceived of a memorial featuring the figure of a forlorn soldier kneeling to mourn before empty helmet, boots, and rifle  an array of objects that traditionally represents a fallen compatriot: Task Force Ironhorse 4th Infantry    Needing a sculptor to carry out his vision, Sgt. Maj. Fuss and other Americans asked around for local talent, and an Iraqi contractor recommended a 27-year-old artist named Khalid Alussy to them. As it turned out, Mr. Alussy was one of several artisans who had worked on a pair of 50-foot bronze statues of Saddam Hussein on horseback that flanked the gateway on the main road into the presidential palace compound in Tikrit, the site of the 4th Infantry Division's temporary headquarters. Commissioned by 4th Infantry Division officers to fashion the memorial conceptualized by Sgt. Maj. Fuss, Khalid Alussy (whose first name is also rendered in English as 'Kalat') took the assignment not out love for Americans, but because he needed the money: The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since."I made the statues of Saddam  even though I didn't want to  because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons." Mr. Alussy's initial asking price was far higher than the officers had expected. He blamed the steep price of bronze. So the Americans decided to recycle the bronze Hussein-on-horseback twins. "We figured we were going to blow them up anyway, so why not take the bronze and use it for our own statues?" recalls Sgt. Fuss. "That way we could take something that honored Saddam and use it to remember all of those we lost getting rid of him." Without having to supply the metal, Mr. Alussy agreed to do the job for $8,000. By comparison, the former regime paid him the equivalent of several hundred dollars for his work on the Hussein statues. To finance the project, Sgt. Fuss publicized it in the task force's internal newspaper and asked officers to get soldiers to contribute $1 each. Within weeks, he raised $30,000.1 In July 2003, Army engineers blew up the two Saddam statues, cut them into pieces, melted them down, and delivered them to Mr. Alussy's house. (The delivery was done furtively in case Mr. Alussy's neighbors proved to be less than thrilled about his being in the employ of the American military.) Using a photograph of 1st Sgt. Glen Simpson as a model for the depiction of the kneeling soldier, Mr. Alussy began his work on the monument; near the end, another segment was added to his task: As the work neared completion, Sgt. Fuss and the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, decided it needed a clearer connection to Iraq. The general suggested adding a small child to symbolize Iraq's new future, Sgt. Fuss says. When they told the artist they wanted another statue, Mr. Alussy demanded $10,000 more. "He learned capitalism real fast," Sgt. Fuss says.1 After four months' worth of night and weekend labor, Mr. Alussy completed his assignment, and the statues were installed in an entranceway inside the 4th Infantry Division's headquarters in Tikrit. In February 2004 the statues were flown to the 4th Infantry Division Museum at the unit's home base of Fort Hood, Texas. Museum Fort Hood Somewhere along the line, this coda was added to the original e-mail: Do you know why we don't hear about this in the news? Because it is heart warming and praise worthy. The media avoids it because it does not have the shock effect that a flashed breast or controversy of politics does. But we can do something about it. We can pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our brave military who are making a difference. As Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News pointed out in a later column, the Kalat story and photo ran in that paper on 27 March 2004 and was afterwards picked up and reprinted by newspapers all over the U.S. Additional information:   <!-- Original changelog: Last updated:  25 February 200616 January 2004 Updated: 16 February 2004 11 June 2004 - updated 17 October 2005 - added info about media reporting of story 25 February 2006: reformatted 16 December 2009 - updated Add'l Info links -->   Blow, Steve.  "Sometimes, Facts Get in Way of Media-Bashing."
  The Dallas Morning News.  23 January 2005  (p. B1).   1.  Dreazen, Yochi J.  "In This Monument to Dead, the Medium Really Is the Message."
  The Wall Street Journal.  8 March 2004  (p. A1).   Kibbey, Spc. Benjamin R.  "Changing Faces: Statue Honors Fallen Heroes."
  Army News Service.  6 January 2004.   Miles, Donna.  "Memorial to Honor Fallen Task Force Ironhorse Troops."
  American Forces Press Service.  20 February 2004. On a scale of politically controversial topics, airline tickets might rank near the bottom, perhaps somewhere just above Roberts Rules of Order and a quorum call.And yet plane tickets have been part of some curious claims taken on by PolitiFact: Every time you buy an airline ticket, the federal government runs a background check on you -- PolitiFact Texas:Mostly False You can use food stamps for a plane ticket to go to Hawaii -- PolitiFact National:Pants on Fire Now coming down the runway is a claim byGary Kelly, chief executive officer of Dallas-based Southwest Airlines. Southwest carries themost domestic passengersin the U.S. and themost passengersat Milwaukees Mitchell International Airport.Kelly made his statement in a column he wrote for the February 2013 issues of the in-flight magazines of Southwest and of AirTran Airways, which Southwestacquiredin 2011.Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket, he stated. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.With spring break around the corner, and alcohol, tobacco and firearms always in season, lets see if Kellys claim takes flight.Cost of an airline ticketKellys opinion column focused on federal taxes on airline tickets and other products. His source for the taxes on an airline ticket isAirlines for America, the trade group that advocates for the airline industry. It spent $6.37 million in federal lobbying in 2012,accordingto the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org.In December 2012, Airlines for Americaannounced detailsof a campaign it would undertake in 2013 to persuade lawmakers to reduce federal taxes on airlines and take other steps to help the industry.Just how high are those taxes?Southwest Airlines spokesman Brad Hawkins usedfiguresprovided by Airlines for America to give a breakdown of the four major federal taxes and fees on a ticket with a base price of $300. His example includes one connecting flight each way -- in other words, a ticket that includes two flights on the departure segment of the trip and two flights on the return. Based on Hawkins calculations, the $66.10 equals 22 percent of the cost of the $300 ticket, exceeding the 20 percent that Kelly claimed.As for the size of the taxes and fees, we found a Federal Aviation Administrationdocumentconfirming the excise tax and segment fee amounts; theyhelp fundthe FAA, which coordinates air traffic control and other aspects of the aviation system. (Anexcise taxis somewhat like a sales tax, in that it is paid on a purchase, but its often included in the purchase price. )Another FAAdocumentconfirms the passenger facility charge, which is collected by public agencies that run commercial airports and is used for FAA-approved projects at the airports. And a Transportation Security Administrationdocumentconfirms the Sept. 11 fee, which helps fund the TSA.We ran Kellys statement and his itinerary by Joakim Karlsson, a researcher with theAirline Ticket Tax Projectat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the project studies ticket taxes and user fees added directly to airline tickets. He called Kellys statement mathematically correct, but fundamentally misleading.Karlsson noted that fares are usually quoted with taxes and fees included. So, a $300 ticket would include a base fare of about $239.Karlsson calculated that would trigger $61 in taxes and fees, which would still amount to 20 percent of the ticket cost, the same amount Kelly claimed.But more importantly, Karlsson said, the sample ticket that Kelly uses is not typical: So, a $418 non-stop ticket would include $54 in taxes and fees, or just under 15 percent of the total. (The taxes and fees in Kellys $300 ticket example, if the trip were non-stop, also would equal just under 15 percent. )That means the first part of Kellys claim is accurate, but leaves out important details.Taxes and fees on other productsAs for the second part of Kellys statement, the Southwest Airlines spokesman cited a 2011opinion columninThe Wall Street Journalby the chief executive officer of Airlines for America, the airlines trade group. The column argued that the taxes paid by airlines are at the same excessive levels as sin taxes imposed on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.But the column provided no figures to show how the various tax rates compare.We found the followingfiguresfrom the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a division of the Department of Treasury. They represent only the federal taxes on these products. Some brands of beer cost more than others, some wine costs more in one part of the country than another, buying in bulk costs less, etc.But, to consider some examples, if a: None of this takes into account state and local taxes on the various products, but Kellys claim focuses on federal taxes.So, the tax rate on an airline ticket -- whether its 20 percent, as in the example Kelly cited, or the more typical 15 percent as cited by the MIT program -- is generally higher than the federal tax rates on the other products Kelly cited.One might argue that taxes and fees on airline tickets, which help fund aviation operations, are fundamentally different from sin taxes on things like cigarettes, which are meant to hold down consumption. But thats not an argument central to this claim.Our ratingKelly said: Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.The first part of the claim is technically accurate, but misleading, given that the tax rate on a typical flight -- which costs more than $300 and doesnt include connecting flights -- is 15 percent. The second part of the claim, although it doesnt take into account price variations on various products, appears generally accurate.On balance, since the thrust of the claim was which had more taxes and which had less, we rate the statement Mostly True. Weeks after the U.S. Capitol insurrection, reports surfaced claiming that a highly visible member of the right-wing mob  the self-described "QAnon digital soldier" who was photographed shirtless, wearing horns and furs on his head  was abandoning former President Donald Trump as a demagogue. reports QAnon digital soldier For example, a Jan. 29 Vice headline read: "The 'QAnon Shaman' just Flipped On Trump." headline read   The assertion had some truth to it. In an interview with The Associated Press, the lawyer representing the man  Jacob Chansley or "Jake Angeli" of Arizona  said his client's attitude toward the president had changed since the deadly siege, and he was willing to testify in Trump's historic second impeachment. That trial by the U.S. Senate was set to begin the week of Feb. 8 and would either convict or acquit the former president of inciting his supporters to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to halt a ceremonial vote to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. halt a ceremonial vote The attorney, Albert Watkins, said he wants senators to hear the perspective of someone who was incited by Trump, according to the Jan. 30 story. The Associated Press continued: Jan. 30 story Watkins said his client was previously 'horrendously smitten' by Mr. Trump but now feels let down after Mr. Trump's refusal to grant Chansley and others who participated in the insurrection a pardon. 'He felt like he was betrayed by the president,' Watkins said. Here is a full list of the people Trump pardoned or commuted during his final hours in office. full list We reached out to Watkins to determine the legitimacy of the news story. In an email, we sent him a link to The Associated Press reporting, asked him if it was indeed accurate, and, if so, inquired why or under what circumstances his party decided to offer Angeli's testimony. He responded in an email message to Snopes: "My client is available if called upon to testify. No statement to the contrary has been made." In other words, it was true to claim that Angeli  who was arrested and charged on Jan. 9 for insurrection-related crimes including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct  was willing to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial, which may determine whether Trump can run for political office in the future. Jan. 9 whether However, the nature of Angeli's testimony, should he be asked to speak during the trial, remained unknown as of this writing. "The words of Trump supporters who are accused of participating in the riot may end up being used against him in his impeachment trial," The Associated Press reported, though no evidence existed to determine whether Angeli would indeed share his experience to help senators convict the former president. In sum, while it was true that Angeli was willing to testify at Trump's second impeachment trial, it was not known whether he was preparing to make a statement that would help or hurt the efforts of senators who believe the former president is guilty of inciting the insurrection. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of truthful, false, and undetermined information. Dan Patrick framed his case for ordering Texas schools to shift money toward higher teacher salaries by suggesting that less than a third of school spending currently reaches teacher pocketbooks. The Republican lieutenant governor,addressing reportersbefore the July 2017 start of a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, said: Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers. By email, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia offered as the basis of Patricks claim astate publicationpresenting statistics such as student enrollment. We did not spot information in the document speaking to what Patrick said. Texas Education Agency figures But when we reached out to the Texas Education Agency, spokeswoman Lauren Callahan responded by pointing out state-posted figures for the 2015-16 school year, the latest year of audited spending totals. That year, according to the agency, state governmentrecorded receipts of $58,796,907,294related to public schools from state, local, federal and other revenue sources. The same year,according toanother agency web page, 347,328 teachers were paid combined base salaries of $18,023,516,741, averaging $51,892. That $18 billion breaks out to 31 percent of the nearly $59 billion in total receipts. Some more money went to teachers, though, in nearly $1 million in stipends such as whats paid to teachers that oversee extracurricular activities, Callahan told us. The resulting total teacher compensation, $19,005,561,634, divides out to 32 percent of the total education receipts. Additional money goes into other salaries. According to the agency, Texas schools in 2015-16 paid more than $24 billion to 68,699 teacher support staff  broken out by TEA into more than 20 job categories including counselors, school nurses and athletic trainers  plus 237,460 administrative, professional, paraprofessional and auxiliary staff  with spending on all employee salaries accounting for more than 70 percent of school-related receipts. Keep in mind, though, Patrick singled out the share of all spending solely devoted to teacher pay. School district advocates When we asked finance experts who advocate for school districts if the equation based on TEA data holds up, we heard back that the math works, but the total-spending figure folds in spending deserving of an asterisk. In emails,Joe Wisnoski, a former TEA finance administrator who advises and lobbies for school districts, andTom Canbyof the Texas Association of School Business Officials each suggested its unfair to compare the $18 billion spent on teacher salaries to total receipts, which count money that doesnt play into school employee salaries, each expert wrote. Wisnoski suggested its more appropriate to compare spending on teacher salaries to operating expenditures, which means not judging the teacher salaries against any money districts raise in bond proceeds or whats spent on capital projects such as buildings or to pay off debt. Wisnoski noted that none of those funding streams would be available to could be diverted to salaries anyway. According to the TEAs posted figures for 2015-16, 2015-16 all funds operating expenditures for schools totaled nearly $49.5 billion --of which the spending on teacher salaries accounted for 36.4 percent, Wisnoski said and we confirmed. There are lots of ways to include or exclude things in the world of school district finances, Wisnoski said, and what is most appropriate somewhat depends on the person making the point and the specific point being made. Canby called the equation that got us to 32 percent of all spending going to teacher salaries a misleading apples divided by oranges calculation. He said he would gauge the share of spending on teacher salaries, starting from 2016actual expenditure totalshe said he fetched from the statesPublic Education Information Management System. Those figures suggest that teacher salaries cost $19,131,375,774 with benefits adding $3,429,356,293. The resulting $22,560,732,067 accounted for 47.7 percent of $47,303,105,584 in operating expenditures statewide, Canby noted. Canby also emailed us a web link to a July 2017commentaryby TASBOs executive director, Tracy Ginsburg, stating that the group had been unable to verify numbers aired by Patrick indicating that of $163,000 spent per classroom, $52,000 is paid to classroom teachers. Ginsburg encouraged readers to consider a June 2017reportby Moak, Casey & Associates, the lobbying and consulting firm whose associates include Wisnoski. That report says that in 2015-16, Texas school employee salaries and benefits absorbed 79 percent of $46.4 billion spent on basic educational costs. The share of that spending on teacher salaries alone doesnt appear in the report, which states that instruction accounted for 61 percent of basic costs, taking into account some 333,000 teachers plus 63,700 education aides. The instruction entry in the report says: Also included here are the salaries and benefits costs of 4,500 librarians as well as the books and other materials that can be found in Texas school libraries. The cost of instructional materials and staff development are also included in this category as instructional costs. Our ruling Patrick said: Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers. This percentage, we found, aligns with the simple comparison of total teacher salaries to all funds spent on public schools. But its worth clarifying that not all funds can be diverted to teacher salaries. You could also say that close to half of available school spending in 2015-16 went to teacher salaries. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. With the advent of electronic voting systems  and public unease with casting ballots that are not tangible physical objects  every election cycle brings rumors that some individual or group with a heavy investment in the outcome of the election owns or controls the machines that record and count votes  and those parties will use their powers to "rig" the voting systems they control to ensure the election outcome conforms to their preferred results. individual group Billionaire business magnate George Soros was tagged in such rumors in 2012, and he was back in 2016 as the subject of articles by disreputable web sites such as the Daily Caller falsely claiming that Soros' ties to the Smartmatic company, purportedly the manufacturer of voting machines used in 16 states, put him in a position to "rig" the election in Hillary Clinton's favor: tagged Daily Caller HILLARY IS RIGGING THE ELECTION! Surprised? You shouldnt be. Weve just learned that Hillary is tied to the one company that has the power to sway this entire election  Smartmatic. Smartmatic manufactures the voting machines that will be used this November. The Chairman of Smartmatic, Mark Malloch-Brown, is on the board of George Soros Open Society Foundation. Yes, George Soros, the billionaire CROOK who is one of Hillarys biggest donors. SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES: ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIllinoisLouisianaMichiganMissouriNew JerseyNevadaOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashingtonWisconsin HILLARY IS TRYING TO RIG THIS ELECTION BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ITS THE ONLY CHANCE SHE HAS! George Soros has no hand in the management or ownership of Smartmatic. As is typical of such claims, this one is based on nothing more than the most tenuous of connections  namely that among the number of non-profit boards on which Smartmatic Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown sits is the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation, an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros. That fact that one of the many people on one of the many boards of one of the many organizations with which George Soros (a large Clinton donor) is involved also happens to chair an electronic voting company is taken as proof enough by conspirators that George Soros has the means, motive, and intent to commit a massive act of voting fraud. And, despite being the multinational billionaire business magnate that he is, Soros utterly lacks the common sense not to rig an election through a confederate so obviously connected to him. Global Board donor As is also typical of such claims, those who propagate them mistakenly assume that every company in the business of providing electronic voting services is producing machines that record and count votes, which isn't the case  such services can include anything from providing streamlined systems for reporting election results to the press to automating the process of voter authentication. In this case the assertion that "Smartmatic's voting machines will be used in 16 crucial states" is a false one, apparently a misinterpretation of a statement on Smartmatic's web site touting that the company had previously offered unspecified "technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States"  a statement that didn't say that Smartmatic supplied voting machines used in all if those states, or that Smartmatic was even currently working with any of those states in any capacity. Indeed, the Case Studies section Smartmatic's web site chronicles their primarily dealing in providing equipment and services for foreign elections  there's no mention of Smartmatic's being involved in U.S. elections beyond providing a voting system for a Utah state Republican caucus in March of 2016 and pilot testing an ePen for capturing provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots in parts of Los Angeles County. Case Studies In fact, a search using Verified Voting shows that not a single one of the listed 16 states is using voting machines provided by Smartmatic in the upcoming election  Smartmatic isn't even listed as a vendor of any voting machines being used in any state. Verified Voting Nonetheless, the false rumor has grown so prevalent that Smartmatic has addressed it themselves on their web site, in a page that includes a statement confirming that no Smartmatic technology is being used in any state during the 2016 U.S. presidential election: addressed  Smartmatic is 100% privately owned. Smartmatic has no ties to political parties or groups in any country and abide by a stringent code of ethics that forbids the company to ever donate to any political campaigns of any kind.  The companys headquarters were based in Florida for many years, but have since moved to London to service its global client base.  George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in Smartmatic.  It is no secret that our Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is a member of a number of non-profit boards addressing global issues from poverty reduction to conflict resolution, including the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation. This is stated clearly in his official biography. Lord Malloch-Brown is a highly respected global figure whose credentials include former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Vice-Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He also served in the British Cabinet, as Minister of State in the Foreign Office.  Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.   Our election technology has handled more than 3.7 billion votes over the past 12 years in election projects on five continents, without a single discrepancy.  As a technology provider, Smartmatic is only responsible for, and concerned with, the technical aspects of the vote. Smartmatic does not comment on specific candidates or outcomes.  Smartmatics voting technology has never been compromised. George Soros' philanthropic organization comprises 22 different boards, but Smartmatic's chairman sits on only one of them. Soros himself has never worked for, or held an ownership share in, Smartmatic. boards <!-- As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it.  2012 a pilot test with Smartmatic to streamline and expedite election reports during the California Primary Presidential Elections of June 7. Smartmatic provided its ePen solution in Malibu, Littlerock and Downey to enable the fast capture of the provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots from reporting precincts. The item went on to claim the 2016 Democratic primary was similarly rigged in Clinton's favor, using a chart from a mid-2016 viral paper examining the integrity of primary results in contests between Clinton and Sanders: Clinton and Sanders Just take a look at this chart detailing some of the primary results between Hillary and Bernie. Look how much better Hillary did in states that used HER voting machines:   That chart (published in July 2016) had nothing to do with Smartmatic or "HER voting machines"; it pertained to the paper's authors' assessment of purported variations in results between states with and states without "paper trails" on electronic voting machines: published We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clintons numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote: Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. An interesting point of deviation between the two separate election fraud claims was that the initial paper focused in part on potential impropriety involving voting machines. But in that earlier claim, Smartmatic (the vendor purportedly in control of 16 states) was not mentioned: Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors. In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor. Off the bat, a discrepancy arose vis a vis the chart. In July 2016, vote skeptics eyed links between two voting vendors and the Democratic National Committee (DNC); neither of those vendors was Smartmatic. In October 2016, the same chart was used to claim Smartmatic had already rigged the primary for Clinton, and would do so for her again in her face-off against Donald Trump on 8 November 2016. Given the source material for the chart named entirely different equipment vendors, its inclusion in claims about Smartmatic was suspect.  Missing from the later claim was any information about how the 16 states and their use of Smartmatic machines to ostensible exclusion was obtained. The claim was simply stated as fact with no citation, along with assertions that George Soros (a Hungarian-American mogul and political activist) was heading up Smartmatic. We contacted Smartmatic via phone and e-mail to ask about the states and the rumor, but did not receive a response. However, Smartmatic (like most companies) heralded their own work and achievements on their web site, and voting machines were not a primary highlight: heralded highlight   It appeared the list of 16 states came verbatim from the unreferenced Smartmatic web site, where the company explained that in its tenure it had worked with 307 counties in 16 states (not that it supplied all voting machines to all 16, or even currently worked in any capacity with any of the states): In the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States. By contrast, the circulating articles used slightly different framing: SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES[.] The "Soros connection" was also described openly on Smartmatic's web site, via a biography and professional history for company chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Although the articles claimed Malloch-Brown "sat on the board" of George Soros Open Society Foundation, his resume suggested that any work with Soros was not current: openly Mark Malloch-Brown is a former number two in the United Nations as well as having served in the British Cabinet and Foreign Office. He now sits in the House of Lords and is active both in business and in the non-profit world. He also remains deeply involved in international affairs. Mark served as Deputy Secretary-General and Chief of Staff of the UN under Kofi Annan ... Other positions have included vice-chairman of George Soross Investment Funds, as well as his Open Society Institute, a Vice-President at the World Bank and the lead international partner at Sawyer Miller, a political consulting firm.  Thus far the rumor amounted to Smartmatic's potential and possibly prior involvement in "offer[ing] technology and support services" to 307 counties in 16 states, a misrepresented chart of alleged election irregularities involving other voting equipment vendors, and a company chair who once worked for Soros' Investment Funds and Open Society Institute. As for the level of Smartmatic's specific involvement in the vote in those 16 states, most state election officials provided information about their voting methods up to and including vendors that supplied equipment used on Election Day. Ballotpedia hosted a color-coded map of the U.S. with information about voting methods by state, and not all the 16 states voted identically: color-coded map   Going by color-coding alone, it was clear the states' election equipment and processes varied tremendously. The oft-included chart (which evolved to identify "HER voting machines") in actuality referenced states that employed Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) without a paper trail. But several of the 16 states with a paper trail included Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and Wisconsin -- they were not included in tabulations from states without. Of the 16, only Louisiana and New Jersey employed the DRE without paper trail method of voting, and the balance of states used either paper ballots, a combination of DRE and paper ballots, or mail-in voting -- none of which could be easily corrupted by Hillary Clinton or George Soros. As of 2014, the District of Columbia offered both paper and DRE voting with receipts. offered As Smartmatic stated, "support" and "technology" was provided to the 16 states mentioned; extant information indicated that the states were not equipped identically with specific machines; some used paper or mail-in ballots, some employed DRE with a paper trail, and two used DRE without any "receipts." Arizona (the first state listed) made information about voting machine manufacturers available on its web site [PDF]; only Maricopa county used Sequoia technologies, bought and later sold by Smartmatic in 2006. California relied on a a variety of vendors for DRE voting, including Sequoia, Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, InkaVote, and Premier; Smartmatic was not listed on California's election web site as a current or prior vendor of voting machines (but as evidenced above, the company did provide electronic pens for some primary election functions). Illinois also did not list Smartmatic as a vendor, Colorado used Diebold equipment before switching to vote by mail (a vendor also used by Missouri), and Florida listed several vendors (none Smartmatic) for their machines.  PDF 2006 Sequoia ES&S Hart InterCivic InkaVote Premier Illinois Diebold Missouri vendors In fact, in a search using Verified Voting, not a single one of the 16 states was listed as using voting machines provided by Smartmatic -- Smartmatic was not even listed as a vendor of any voting machine in any state. As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it. --> Verified Voting 2012 Barragan, Rodolfo Cortes.  "Study Shows Voting Irregularities Linked to Companies That Donated to the Clinton Foundation."
  The Bern Report.  7 July 2016. Cohen, Zach C.  "How D.C. Votes: Paper or Scantron?"
  The Washington Post.  2 April 2014. McCord, Susan.  "Augusta Getting 100 Used Voting Machines from Colorado County."
  The Augusta Chronicle.  2 August 2016.