Is This a Real Photograph of Donald Trump's Older Sons?
A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017: circulating various @realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn  Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017 June 9, 2017  The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." Dumb and Dumber sloth captions However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)" original Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to uglify the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump, Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right):
Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. When Nirvana released its song Pennyroyal Tea'' in 1993, lead singer Kurt Cobain said it was about depression, though his notes mentioned how pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent.  said His notes gained prominence online in June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court voted to strike down Roe v. Wade via its decision on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reversing federal abortion protections that had been in place for nearly 50 years. U.S. Supreme Court The internet immediately began speculating on what this meant for people seeking abortions in the country, and whether this would result in many seeking more dangerous methods in order to carry them out. Some referenced the purported uses of the pennyroyal herb: dangerous   Pages and pages of Cobains original writings and scribbles were collected in the book Journals, which included diary entries, lyrics, and his musings on various songs he was working on. Under the underlined heading Pennyroyal tea he wrote, [A] herbal abortive  it doesnt work you hippie.  Journals  Journals Cobain is not entirely wrong. Pennyroyal was considered to be an abortifacent, in that it was used to induce abortions, but it was highly dangerous and far removed from our modern scientific methods for carrying out abortions.  Pennyroyal Even Benjamin Franklins publishing company included an abortion recipe that featured pennyroyal in its adaptation of a British manual for the colonies in 1748. In an entry about Suppression of the Courses, the manual advises women to drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction. Benjamin Franklins According to the article, Persephones Seeds: Abortifacients and Contraceptives in Ancient Greek Medicine and Their Recent Scientific Appraisal, published in the Pharmacy in History journal by the University of Wisconsin Press: There is evidence that pennyroyal [] and other medicinal plants were used in Ancient Greece as anti-fertility agents [] These anti-fertility agents, which were administered orally or as vaginal suppositories, may have functioned as early term abortifacents and contraceptives in women.  article But modern medical professionals say that using pennyroyal to induce an abortion is dangerous and there is insufficient evidence to show that it actually works.  insufficient evidence According to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Pennyroyal is a flowering plant that was used in folk medicine to induce abortion, alleviate menstrual symptoms, and to treat inflammatory conditions and minor ailments [...] There have been a number of case reports and also several deaths attributed to the use of this botanical.  Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center According to the United States National Library of Medicine, There is some evidence that pennyroyal oil can cause abortions by causing the uterus to contract. But the dose needed in order to cause an abortion could kill the mother or cause life-long kidney and liver damage. United States National Library of Medicine   Given that mentions of the herb have grown since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many are concerned that recent events will result in more people turning to this as a form of abortion. We also know that banning abortions does not necessarily end their occurrence; it only results in more unsafe conditions for carrying out the procedure.  know Ultimately, whatever his intention in writing this down in his notes, Cobain seemed to have the correct idea about the abortifacent, and people are strongly warned to not try it at all. We rate this claim as a Correct Attribution.  Did Ben Franklin Publish a Recipe in a Math Textbook on How to Induce Abortion? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/16/ben-franklin-abortion-math-textbook/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Do Laws Banning Abortion Actually Decrease the Rate of Abortions? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/20/banning-abortion-decrease-rate/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Journals - Kurt Cobain, Nirvana (Band). Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/262983068/Journals-Kurt-Cobain. Accessed 27 June 2022. Live Fact-Checking Updates: US Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/24/dobbs-supreme-court-roe-wade/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Martoccio, Angie. Nirvanas In Utero: 20 Things You Didnt Know. Rolling Stone, 21 Sept. 2018, https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/nirvana-in-utero-trivia-kurt-cobain-722109/. Accessed 27 June 2022. Nelson, Sarah E. Persephones Seeds: Abortifacients and Contraceptives in Ancient Greek Medicine and Their Recent Scientific Appraisal. Pharmacy in History, vol. 51, no. 2, 2009, pp. 5769, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41112420. Accessed on 27 June 2022. "Pennyroyal." Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/integrative-medicine/herbs/pennyroyal. Accessed 27 June 2022. "Pennyroyal." MedlinePlus Supplements. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/480.html. Accessed 27 June 2022. In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY":  This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions:  Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook  In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again:  Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page:  Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam On 25 October 2015 the web site Huzlers published an article reporting that "Jake," the character seen in State Farm Insurance's ubiquitous "State of Unrest" television commercial, had been murdered by his wife in a fit of rage over his infidelity: State of Unrest It is being reported that Jake From State Farm was reportedly found dead in his apartment bedroom Saturday night. According to authorities, Jake was killed by his wife after finding him in bed with another woman. Jake From State Farm was murdered by his own wife for allegedly cheating on her. Very Ironic, considering that the original Jake From State Farm commercial was about being unfaithful. According to State Farm, Jake would be a good neighbor to all of his clients, but when he needed help, nobody was there for him. Jakes wife was arrested a few hours following the murder. A true hero quoted State Farm. Nothing about this story is true, as it originated on Huzlers, a well known fake news site.  Also, real news articles (especially those reporting on deaths) tendto include the real names of actors and not refer to them solely by the names of characters they played on television. Finally, "Jake from State Farm" has dispelled this himself rumor on Twitter: dispelled  (This story might have made more logical [satirical] sense if the putative murder victim were actor Justin Campbell, who played the husband suspected of infidelity by his wife in the popular "State of Unrest" State Farm commercial, and not actual State Farm agent Jake Stone, who filled the role of the innocent insurance agent Jake.)      Justin Campbell Huzlers bills itself as "the most notorious urban satirical entertainment website in the world with the most shocking headlines and articles shared by trillions around the world." On 9 July 2016, the Facebook page "The Medical Facts" published the image and explanation shown below, reporting the development of synthetic rhino horn as an anti-poaching measure: image A biotech startup has managed to 3-D print fake rhino horns that carry the same genetic fingerprint as the actual horn. The company plans to flood Chinese [the] Chinese rhino horn market at one-eighth of the price of the original, undercutting the price poachers can get and forcing them out eventually.  The International Rhino Foundation (IRF) and Save the Rhino International (SRI) issued a joint statement after "monitoring the progress of four US-based companies that have announced their intentions  with varying degrees of success  to produce synthetic or bio-fabricated rhino horn, and occasionally also other products including e.g. elephant ivory, lion bones or pangolin scales." In that statement, both groups expressed their opposition to the introduction of fake rhino horn to international markets: statement We are opposed to the development, marketing and sale of synthetic rhino horn [because]: o Selling synthetic horn does not reduce the demand for rhino horn or dispel the myths around rhino horn and could indeed lead to more poaching because it increases demand for the real thing o More than 90% of rhino horns in circulation are fake (mostly carved from buffalo horn or wood), but poaching rates continue to rise annually. o Synthetic horn could give credence to the notion that rhino horn has medicinal value, which is not supported by science. o Users buy from trusted sources and value the real thing. o The availability of legal synthetic horn could normalise or remove the stigma from buying illegal real horn. o It will take time to develop synthetic horn and meanwhile the poaching crisis continues. o How can consumers and law enforcement officials distinguish between legal synthetic horn that looks real, and illegal real horn? o Companies benefitting from making synthetic horn have shown very little commitment to use their profits to help the core problem of rhino poaching; besides which, those profits would meet only a tiny fraction of the total rhino protection costs that would remain to be met as long as demand reduction campaigns falter, as they would with the marketing of synthetic horn. o Finally, the manufacture / marketing / sale of synthetic horn diverts funds and attention from the real problem: unsustainable levels of rhino poaching. A December 2015 National Geographicarticle covered the efforts of one such biotechnology outfit producing synthetic rhino horn (Pembroke) and outlined some conservationist concerns about the unintended consequences of such a venture: article I frankly dont see that its any better, to be honest, says Susie Watts, a consultant for WildAid and co-chair of the Species Survival Network Rhino Working Group, referring to Pembients move to put faux powder on the back burner. While shes aware that people buy rhino horn jewelry, Watts has never heard of rhino horn cell phone cases and chopsticks. But opposition to Pembients synthetic horn plans extends beyond the possible new market it could create. Theres very little, if any, relief on wild populations when we see commercial farming develop or commercial trade of a protected species, says Douglas Hendrie, manager of the wildlife crime and investigations unit for conservation group Education for Nature - Vietnam. The wild trade continues right alongside. Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, also believes that inserting fake horn into the market could counteract efforts to educate people about why they shouldnt buy wild horn, a strategy most activists push as the best way to reduce demand. If you start to nuance that message with some rhino horn is good, some of it is bad, some of it is legal, some of it is illegal, he says, you lose people and lose the clarity of the message. Theres also concern that fake horn could increase the workload for law enforcement in countries already struggling to contain the illicit trade. According to Hendrie, Vietnam doesnt have the enforcement capacity to regulate the black market along with the legal one. A February 2016 followup article presented a five-point set of objections to the introduction of genetic copies of rhino horn to the market, filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity: presented Additionally, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace commented: Experience demonstrates that efforts to 'flood the market' with products produced from protected wildlifeeither by producing synthetic alternatives or raising animals in captivity for harvestoften fail to achieve their stated goal. Such efforts often create more demand from consumers, even as products from wild animals and plants continue to command a premium over synthetic or farmed alternatives. ... We also have significant concerns about injecting products into the market that would make it harder for law enforcement to detect poached and trafficked wildlife products, or allow criminals to disguise the source of illegal products by commingling them with these alternatives. In short, it's true that at least four biotechnology firms have engaged in some form of development of synthetic material genetically identical to rhino horn. Although progress in that area was initially hailed as a potential anti-poaching measure, conservation groups and wildlife officials have since expressed strong skepticism that the overall effects on the rhinoceros population of selling such material wouldn't be deleterious.  Members of both groups have espoused positions opposing the introduction of fake rhino horn to any market, citing anticipated demand uptick and burdens on already taxed enforcement agencies. Actman, Jani.  "Can Fake Rhino Horn Stop the Poaching of an Endangered Species?"
  National Geographic.  2 December 2015. Neme, Laurel.  "Petition Seeks Ban on Trade in Fake Rhino Horn."
  National Geographic.  10 February 2016. Save the Rhino International.  "Joint Statement by the International Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International."
  July 2015. Milwaukee Ald. Bob Donovan, a candidate for mayor in 2016, worries that upcoming retirements could further reduce what he sees as an undersized police force under Mayor Tom Barrett. Inhis state of the city speech Feb. 24, 2014, Barrett noted he had added 120 new officers in his 2014 budget. Donovan hit on that number when interviewed in the wake of his mayoral announcement. The reality is the number of officers has not increased, Donovan said during a July 29, 2014 appearance on theCharlie Sykes show on WTMJ-AM. Now the mayor will continue to say were hiring 120 cops this year. That doesnt take into consideration the fact that weve had 150 retirements, or that we havent filled positions going way back. When we asked Donovan about the comment, he did not cite hard numbers, but told us he figures unfilled positions and retirements have outstripped the addition of recruits over the 10 years Barrett has been in office. Is Donovan  right? Has police strength -- at least by the numbers -- been flat or gone down on Barretts watch? To answer that question, we turned to the citys Fire and Police Commission, which issues an annual report that details the size of the overall force. To be sure, the actual number of bodies on the force on any given date is constantly changing, since retirement dates vary while recruit classes mean a wave of new bodies joins the force at once. The Fire and Police Commissionreports, available online, are as close to an official tally of police strength as we found. They list, by race and gender, the number of persons on the Police Department payroll as of the last pay period of each year. The latest covers 2012, so we obtained figures for 2013 and so far in 2014 directly from the commission. We used 2004 as the pre-Barrett baseline for our comparisons, because Barrett didnt take office until spring 2004 and therefore did not propose the budget for that year. All figures factor in retirements, terminations and new hires. Police officers At the end of 2004, 1,402 police officers were on the payroll. That number fell to 1,357 by the end of 2013, a 3 percent drop. By that measure -- the one the public sees -- Donovan is correct that officer strength has not increased. Barrett administration officials note it can be misleading to look only at strength of force at any one point in time. A new class of officer recruits came on line in late 2004, boosting the number, they said. A comparison of pay period one in 2004 to the same period in 2014, for example, actually shows a small increase in officer strength. A better measure than point in time comparisons, they said, is average strength across the whole year. That was 1,349 in 2004, they said, and based on the first half of 2014 its 1,341 now -- a smaller decline. Still, that approach does not change the accuracy of Donovans claim. Total sworn officers City officials often will refer to this larger figure when discussing officer strength, and Donovan did as well when we contacted him. It includes not only patrol officers but detectives, supervisors, various technicians and specialists as well as the police chief and the top command staff. At the end of 2004, the figures show 2,006 sworn officers were on board. That number fell to 1,828 by late 2013 and to 1,875 by mid-July 2014. Earlier in 2004, according to Barretts budget staff, the figure was 1,932. And Barretts office released figures using the average strength throughout the year that show a smaller drop in overall sworn strength. Again, those figures change the angle of descent, but not the downward direction of the trend. Within those numbers, the detective ranks fell by more than one fourth. So by this broader measure, Donovan is on target again. Ten-year trend The staff strength figures from the Fire and Police Commission show that the police officer ranks grew early in Barretts tenure, but have slipped gradually with one exception since then. Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 P.O.s* 1,402 1,362 1,390 1,441 1,406 1,392 1,362 1,348 1,384 1,357 1,345** As for the broader sworn ranks, a similar trend is evident. By way of explaining the lack of growth in the police force, Barrett chief of staff Patrick Curley and city budget officials said state shared-revenue aid to Milwaukee has dropped by $25 million since 2004 while the police budget is $65 million higher. They said the department under Chief Edward Flynn has re-deployed officers from administrative tasks to community policing. That was accomplished by hiring more civilians to do those desk jobs, they said. Efficiencies have helped avoid layoffs seen in some big cities, Barrett spokeswoman Jodie Tabak said. The Barrett officials told PolitiFact Wisconsin that our inquiry for this fact check led the mayor to quickly unveil aproposal to add 15 more officers to a training classthat will graduate in April 2015. It already had been under consideration to announce later this year, they said. The mayor will propose his 2015 budget in September. Our rating Donovan said the number of Milwaukee police officers has not increased under Mayor Tom Barrett. Donovans claim is on target because reports from the citys Fire and Police Commission indicate a decline in the number of officers since 2004. And other measuring sticks offered by Barretts office show the same trend. We rate Donovans claim True. Since at least 2010, a picture of a newspaper headline has been shared on websites and social media. The headline read, "Missippi's [sic] literacy program shows improvement," which referred to the state of Mississippi. The most recent social media post we found was from Oct. 18, 2021. most recent social media post   This story might bring to mind Jay Leno's old "Headlines" segment from his late-night show. The weekly bit involved displaying funny newspaper clippings for laughs. We didn't find the misspelled headline in any of the Leno clips that were available on YouTube. segment According to the picture, the article below the headline came from The Associated Press (AP). However, was the headline also written by the AP? This was what we sought to find out. For readers who may not be familiar with what the AP does, stories from the wire service are republished on websites and printed in newspapers across the world, including right here on Snopes.com. including right here on Snopes.com The following words were also visible in the body of the story: "... and his late wife, Sally, put up $100 million of their own money to improve ..." This bit of text helped in the effort to track down when the body of the article was first published. We searched newspaper archives on the handy website Newspapers.com for the words from the body of the story. The earliest date we landed on was June 12, 2005. It was credited to Associated Press journalist Emily Wagster Pettus and printed in The Greenwood Commonwealth, a newspaper in the state of Mississippi. However, it had a different headline: "Barksdale Reading Institute getting results in schools." Newspapers.com printed Following June 12, we found that the same story was printed with different headlines in quite a few newspapers. The most common headline we saw was: "Mogul's literacy investment paying off in poverty-stricken Mississippi schools." We found no newspaper that misspelled the word Mississippi as "Missippi." Further, we found it slightly odd that, according to Google's search results, the headline picture didn't find its way on the internet until five years later in 2010. It's possible that a small newspaper that has not yet made available its archives to Newspapers.com accidentally printed the misspelled headline. It's also possible that the headline was printed as slang, something that has been written about the word "Missippi" before, since some residents in the state pronounce it that way. The picture could also have been doctored by someone looking to make a joke. has been written about One Reddit user provided an interesting possible explanation of why the headline was spelled the way it was, although it could be considered to be a stretch: "They just shortened Mississippi because there are only two columns. "Missippi" is just the phonetic spelling for how they pronounce it down there." provided an interesting possible explanation The "Missippi's literacy program" headline picture has been reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Reddit over the years, perhaps as a way to make light of the state's national education ranking. One of the posts from June 2019 received more than 34,500 points and hundreds of comments. For readers unfamiliar with how significant this is, it meant that the photograph was one of the top submissions on the day that it was posted. a seemingly endless number of times ranking received Quite a few Reddit users assumed the apparent error came from the AP, commenting: "Why would Mississippi be responsible for the AP's inability to spell Mississippi?" We found many more instances where the AP was blamed for spelling it as "Missippi." A search for "Missippi" on Reddit showed lots of reposts with comments that placed blame on the AP. many more instances showed We found no evidence to support the claim that the AP messed up and misspelled Mississippi as "Missippi" in the headline about literacy. After contacting the AP, they confirmed that they did not write the headline. It's not uncommon for newspapers to alter the headlines for stories from wire companies. That may have been what happened here. Sources On Oct. 25, the rating for this claim was updated from "Research In Progress" to  We found no evidence that the AP wrote the "Missippi" headline. Further, the AP confirmed that it did not come from them. It's not uncommon for newspapers to change the headlines for stories from wire companies. Claim:  Illustrations show a proposed Grand Canyon skywalk. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005]  Grand Canyon SkywalkScheduled to open January 1, 2006Hualapai Indian Reservation   * Juts out about 70 feet into the canyon, 4000 ft above the Colorado River  *Will accommodate 120 people comfortably (How comfortable would YOU be?)  * Built with more than a million pounds of steel beams and includes dampeners that minimize the structure's vibration  * Designed to hold 72 million pounds, withstand an 8.0 magnitude earthquake 50 miles away, and withstand winds in excess of 100 mph  * Has a glass bottom and sides...four inches thick   Origins:   Strange as it may seem, theabove-displayed illustrations are indeed renderings of a proposed skywalk extending over the south rim of the Grand Canyon, to be built on the  Hualapai Indian Reservationadjacent to Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park. Hualapai Indian Reservation The $30 million all-glass Skywalk will hover 3,800 feet above the Colorado River over a rim of the Grand Canyon, allowing tourists to stroll on an 80-yard walk around a semicircular platform jutting beyond the canyon rim, surrounded by Plexiglas that will provide a spectacular view of the canyon floor directly below.  (The statement that the structure is designed to hold "72 million pounds" appears to be a copywriter's misparsing of a 72-ton figure.)  The Skywalk (initially projected to open in early 2006, before construction delays pushed back the completion date) will be part of a new Grand Canyon West resort on the Hualapai reservation at the western edge of the park, about 120 miles from Las Vegas.   As the Arizona Republic noted, the Skywalk is part of an effort by the Hualapai tribe to create a multi-faceted tourist resort and revenue stream not dependent upon casino gaming: Levi Esquerra, program director for Northern Arizona University's Center for American Indian Economic Development, said the Hualapais are one of the few tribes to have a bustling economy without casino gaming as a linchpin. "They've been able to exploit their natural beauty and become a tourist destination," Esquerra said. "What we've normally seen in the past between the tribes and national Park Service is like the Blackfeet in Montana appealing to get free access to Glacier National Park. But the Hualapais have a new and aggressive attitude to develop markets on their own land." The Hualapai's Grand Canyon Resort Corp. already has completed the first phase of an adjoining Indian village, where Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai craftsmen constructed traditional dwellings surrounding an amphitheater that hosts daily Native American dances. The first phase of a nearby Old West village also has been completed, and plans are on the drawing board to construct a tram from the canyon rim to the floor. Ditto for an anticipated high-end resort and a campground, which will house about 50 cabins and be able to accommodate 200 campsites and 200 recreation vehicles. The parts for the Skywalk project were fabricated in other locations and brought to the Grand Canyon site as it was readied for their installation, a process depicted in the photographs shown below:                      The transparent pathway was installed in place in March 2007, and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin offically inaugurated the Skywalk on 20 March 2007 by taking a stroll on it in front of a crowd of about 1,000 tourists, dignitaries and tribal members:    Grand Canyon West has announced 28 March 2007 as the official public opening date:  Grand Canyon West, a destination owned and operated by the Hualapai Tribe at the Grand Canyon's western rim, announces March 28, 2007 as the official public opening date of The Skywalk. The Skywalk will be the first-ever cantilever shaped glass walkway to suspend more than 4,000 feet above the canyons floor and extend 70 feet from the canyon's rim.  Access to The Skywalk will run from dawn to dusk and will cost $25 per person in addition to the cost of a Grand Canyon West entrance package. One hundred and twenty people will be allowed on the bridge at a time. Admittance is first come, first serve for walk up visitors; however, reservations can be made. Guests will enter and exit the walkway via temporary buildings while the adjacent visitors center is being completed. Grand Canyon West plans to issue numbered shoe covers  in in order to avoid scratches and slipping - to each visitor that enters the open-air walkway. Prior to the public opening in March, Grand Canyon West will host a "First Walk" event for media and VIPs. The name of the first public figure to step on The Skywalk will be announced closer to the opening.  The historical rollout of The Skywalk structure, with the glass in place, is scheduled for February 27 to March 2. The initial part of the rollout process involves jacking the structure up off of the supports and then subjecting the structure to several days of thorough tests that replicate the conditions of final placement. After the final testing is complete, the multi-million pound steel enforced structure will be rolled out across the canyon's edge, which takes multiple days. Immediately after the structure is in position, it will be seated and attached to the foundation. Details for a media event during the rollout will be revealed closer to the event. Additional information:      Destination Grand Canyon West   Last updated:  20 March 2007     Sources:   Braun, David.  "Photo in the News: Grand Canyon to Get Glass Bridge."   National Geographic News.  26 August 2005.    Clarke, Jay.  "Tribe Plans Walkway Over Grand Canyon."   The [San Jose] Mercury News.  4 December 2005.    Gaynor, Tim.  "Astronaut's Small Step Opens Grand Canyon Skywalk."   Reuters.  20 March 2007.    Mannweiler, David.  "Don't Look Down and You'll Be Fine."   The Indianapolis Star.  20 November 2005.    Shaffer, Mark.  "Hualapai Tribe Finds Economy Flows Better with River Plan Than Casino."   The Arizona Republic.  13 October 2005. Recently, activists have shown up at Hillary Clintons campaign events to urge her to bring back Glass-Steagall. What is Glass-Steagall? Its the Depression-era bank regulation that kept different types of financial institutions separate; then-President Bill Clinton signed legislation reversing it in 1999. Some Glass-Steagall supporters argue that its demiseled to the 2007 financial crisis, and some Democrats have put a good amount of effort into restoring it -- such as presidential candidates Martin OMalley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. But Hillary Clintonwon't pledge to reinstateGlass-Steagall if she becomes president. And Bill Clinton says criticism over the laws repeal is unfounded. Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall, Bill Clinton said in an interview with Inc. magazinefor its September issue.There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash. Given the significant attention on Glass-Steagall among Democrats, we wondered if its true that it didnt have anything to do with the financial crash. Our research shows the laws demise was part of a broad deregulatory push that greatly contributed to the financial crisis. But Clinton has a point that a direct line from the 1999 repeal to the market crash in 2007-08 is hard to identify. Too big to fail Congress passed Glass-Steagall in 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash that led to the Great Depression. The law kept commercial banks (where customers deposit money and take out loans) separate from investment firms (which hold securities and make investments) -- more colloquially, the law separated Main Street from Wall Street. Some experts and lawmakers want to keep these kinds of activities separate, because theyre worried that merging them could put the publics money at risk. Heres a simple hypothetical: A bank merges with an investment firm to create a massive company. The investment side makes a huge bet on an investment that fails big time, so the commercial bank sides money -- money individuals have deposited for safe-keeping -- could be at risk. Because those deposits are federally insured, it might require a government bailout. (Think too-big-to-fail.) Supporters of the law say keeping these activities separate prevents this kind of domino effect. Is this what caused the most recent financial crisis? Theres plenty of room for debate here, given that thereisnt a single what-caused-the-crisis narrativethat every economist accepts. Its safe to say, though, that there is not a prominent group of economists who argue but for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the crisis would not have happened. Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, doesnt see Glass-Steagall playing any role in the financial crisis whatsoever. He pointed to the crisis biggest culprits: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. He added that much of the crisis hinged on activity by these institutions that would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall, such as mass investment in notoriously bad mortgage loans. (Clintons staff linked us to commentary by several other experts who share Whites view.) We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, whosaidGlass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis, but not having it made the crisis worse. It encouraged banks to get bigger and to take on riskier investments, so the ripple effects of the crisis were bigger than they would have been otherwise, he said, adding that itwasnt just the headline-making banksthat struggled. The extent over Glass-Steagalls effect on the financial crisis is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. More so in Clintons favor is the fact that Glass-Steagall was a shadow of its former self by the time 1999 rolled around. Deregulating like its 1999 A few decades out from the Depression, starting in earnest in the 1970s, there was a push to roll back financial regulations that continued throughout the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. As part of that movement, banks and lawmakers steadily chipped away at Glass-Steagall and took advantage of loopholes. Banks were engaging in the kinds of activity Glass-Steagall was intended to stop even though the law was still on the books. By the time Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, repealing the key components of Glass-Steagall in 1999, the regulation was nearly toothless. The law was simply catching up to what the market had already accomplished in the previous 10 to 15 years, said Kathleen Day, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and an expert in financial crises. Take for example the poster child of the end of Glass-Steagall: The merger of Citicorp, a bank, and Travelers Group, a financial conglomerate, was announced in 1998 before Glass-Steagall was repealed. Even though this was the exact type of merger Glass-Steagall was intended to halt, the financial industrydid not see many obstaclesfor the creation ofCitigroup. Citigroup and others wanted and got the repeal of Glass-Steagall in order to validate what they had already been allowed to do, said Simon Johnson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So the overall, decades-in-the-making decline of Glass-Steagall might have contributed to the financial crisis and its fallout, as it was part of the deregulatory push. But Clinton putting pen-to-paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 probably didnt make any meaningful difference. But Clintons hands arent clean of the financial crisis, because his administration played no small part in the longer term deregulatory trend. Clinton and his administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight over the big, hybrid banks created by the demise of Glass-Steagall, Day said. Additionally, the administrations firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial market played a meaningful role in the crisis -- for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter derivatives, which were becoming increasingly prevalent,despite internal warnings. Clintons claim might be technically true, but its a sin of omission, Day said. Our ruling Clinton said, There's not a single, solitary example that signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the financial crash. By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton's statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasnt very meaningful. It's a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clintons claim Mostly True.