Thank you, Kalat.
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 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch.  According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt  the basics  The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds.  National debt  the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy  despite having the same level of debt  will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.  While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative.  For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent  a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion.  Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible:  Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it.  Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple  the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time.  Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again.  That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017.  2011 2013 2015   Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms.  Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt  public debt and intragovernmental holdings  was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day  even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the  national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services.  "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt".
 TreasuryDirect.gov.  1 April 2016. In November 2021, a photograph from space supposedly showing Diwali  a "festival of lights" that is celebrated by millions of Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists across India  was circulated on social media.    The image on the right does not show how India looks from space during Diwali.  According to NASA, this image was created by combining a series of images over multiple years in an attempt to show population growth. NASA writes: image was created writes An image that claims to show the region lit for Diwali has been circulating on social media websites and the Internet in recent years. In fact, it does not show what it claims. That image, based on data from the Operational Linescan System flown on U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites, is a color-composite created in 2003 by NOAA scientist Chris Elvidge to highlight population growth over time. In that image, white areas show city lights that were visible prior to 1992, while blue, green, and red shades indicate city lights that became visible in 1992, 1998, and 2003 respectively. NASA adds that while Diwali is certainly a thing to behold when standing on the surface of earth, the light produced during the festival of lights isn't enough to be visible from space with normal satellite imagery.  In reality, any extra light produced during Diwali is so subtle that it is likely imperceptible when observed from space. However, infrared cameras can detect the light produced during Diwali. In 2012, NASA's Suomi NPP satellite took an infrared image of South Asia during Diwali. The NASA History Office re-shared this image in 2021 in celebration of the holiday:  Fake Image of Diwali Still Circulating | Earth | EarthSky. 6 Nov. 2018, https://earthsky.org/earth/fake-image-of-india-during-diwali-versus-the-real-thing/. NGDC/STP - Defense Meteorological Satellite Progam, Boulder. 28 Feb. 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20060228074509/https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/india.html. Seen the Viral NASA Diwali Photo Again This Year? Heres All You Need to Know about It. DNA India, 5 Nov. 2021, https://www.dnaindia.com/viral/report-seen-the-viral-nasa-diwali-photo-again-this-year-here-s-all-you-need-to-know-about-it-2918456. South Asian Night Lights. 15 Nov. 2012, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79682/south-asian-night-lights. At the end of March 2022, social media users reported that a message was circulating on WhatsApp offering a free chocolate Easter basket from Cadbury. This was not a genuine offer from the famous chocolate company. This message was part of a phishing scam that used promises of free chocolate to lure users and trick them into giving away their personal information.  On WhatsApp, many people encountered the following message:    There are a few red flags here. First, social media users should be wary of any message offering something for free. Second, social media users should be wary of unfamiliar URLs. While companies may truly offer giveaways on occasion, these promotional offers will come from official company sources. The above-displayed message, however, was not posted by Cadbury, and the above-displayed link is not a link to Cadbury's official website.  The Dorset Police Cyber Crime Unit wrote on Facebook: Dorset Police Cyber Crime Unit wrote on Facebook Keep your eyes peeled for this fairly convincing Cadbury themed phish! It's clearly designed to mirror the current Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt campaign, with the chance to win one of 5000 possible free gifts. The only thing more wrong than this is the act of biting the top off of a Creme Egg to lick the filling out. First thing to pay attention to is that short URL. There's a good reason why we don't like short URLs in the Cyber Crime Unit... They make it much harder to tell where you're actually heading. Also, that .ru domain. There's no good reason for Cadbury to have a Russian address. Then there's the website itself. DON'T CLICK THE LINK. Our Cyber Protect Officer has done it for you. The site looks fairly convincing, however the only buttons that actually work are the ones to answer the questions. The search icon and the three little lines do nothing at all. Once you answer those question, you're taken to a little game where you have to "find your prize". Conveniently, your first and second tries won't be successful, but you'll "win" on your third go! At that point, to claim your "prize", you'll be asked to hand over all sorts of personal information. That's where the scam comes in! Far too high a price to pay for some free chocolate. Especially when Creme Eggs are two for a quid!   The 2022 Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt scam follows the same formula as other social media scams. The fraudsters use an enticing offer (free chocolate) to lure consumers and get them to click on a link. Then, the fraudsters use various tactics (in this case a brief game to "find your prize") to trick users into giving away personal information (such as a credit card number).  same formula as other social media scams   These scams often target consumers of well-known brands, such as Cadbury, and include media or logos that imitate the visual design of those companies. In fact, Cadbury has been repeatedly used in such scams. In 2020, for example, a scam claimed that Cadbury was giving away chocolate hampers for Christmas. scam claimed that Cadbury was giving away chocolate hampers for Christmas In March 2022, the Cadbury UK Facebook page posted a message warning its fans about the current scam: Cadbury UK Facebook page Weve been made aware of circulating posts on social media, claiming to offer consumers a free Easter Chocolate basket. We can confirm that this has not been generated by us and would urge consumers not to interact or share personal information through the post. Customer security is our priority and were working with the relevant organisations to ensure this is resolved. Amid intensifying debate around the prospect of U.S. President Donald Trump's impeachment after it was revealed he had asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate unsubstantiated rumors about former Vice President Joe Biden's dealings with that country, Republicans and Trump supporters hit back by attempting to tie several high-profile Democrats and their families to Ukraine. Right-leaning websites scrutinized the purported business activities of Paul Pelosi Jr., son of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and attempted to draw a meaningful connection between Ukraine and the Clintons. Pelosi attempted On Oct. 6, the Twitter account @RealJack posted a widely-shared tweet which claimed that the sons of Biden and Pelosi, as well as those of former Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), had worked for "energy companies doing business in Ukraine": Biden's sonPelosi's sonRomney's sonKerrys son All are on the board of directors for energy companies doing business in Ukraine... Coincidence? No.  Jack Murphy (@RealJack) October 6, 2019 October 6, 2019   @RealJack's claims were further promulgated when multiple Facebook accounts re-posted the wording of his tweet, including the group "Texas for Donald Trump 2020": multiple Facebook accounts On Oct. 8, the right-leaning, Trump-supporting Twitter account @Education4Libs attempted to draw all these strands together with a widely-shared, innuendo-laden tweet claiming that an unspecified conspiracy connected donations to the Clinton Foundation with the alleged business activities of the sons of prominent Democrats: "From 1999-2014, Ukraine donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than any other foreign country. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, & Romney all have children working for Ukrainian gas companies. And all of the people I mentioned want Trump impeached. Are you connecting the dots yet?" From 1999-2014, Ukraine donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than any other foreign country. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, & Romney all have children working for Ukrainian gas companies. And all of the people I mentioned want Trump impeached. Are you connecting the dots yet? ?  Educating Liberals (@Education4Libs) October 8, 2019 October 8, 2019 These tweets constituted a mixture of some accurate statements with false claims, as well as unsubstantiated suggestions of unspecified wrongdoing or corruption on the part of those involved. Clinton Foundation donations In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that between 1999 and 2014, Ukrainians had donated more than individuals of any other nationality to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization founded by former President Bill Clinton. So @Education4Libs' claim that Ukraine as a country -- rather than individual Ukrainian nationals -- had topped the list of donations was not backed up by the Journal's research. reported Hillary Clinton stepped away from her seat on the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation when she became Secretary of State in 2009. According to the foundation's website, neither she nor Bill nor Chelsea Clinton has ever derived any personal income from their involvement in the charity. website The Bidens Hunter Biden, the former vice president's 49-year-old son, served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 until April 2019, according to multiple reports. His decision to join the company's payroll caused some political discomfort at the time, since Burisma's owner had recently been embroiled in a money-laundering scandal and Biden's father, the vice president, was heading the Obama administration's efforts to discourage and crack down on corruption in Ukraine. multiple reports discomfort However, no evidence has yet emerged suggesting that either Biden engaged in any wrongdoing with regard to Burisma or Ukraine, despite President Trump's efforts to have both men investigated. It is accurate to say that Hunter Biden worked for and was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, but no evidence indicates any link between his work there and Ukrainian donations to the Clinton Foundation. no evidence Furthermore, @Education4Libs claimed in October that Biden is "working for" a Ukrainian gas company, but that's not correct since he stepped down from his place on the board in April 2019. The Pelosis Paul Pelosi Jr., son of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was at one time on the board of a California-based oil-processing company called Viscoil, according to the account he gave in a video recorded in 2010. The link between Viscoil and Ukraine is either tenuous or non-existent and does not appear to involve Pelosi at all. oil-processing video Viscoil was linked to a somewhat shadowy figure going by the name "Ana Shell," who claims to be an investor and environmental entrepreneur, and claims to have provided funding to both Viscoil and another entity called NRG Lab. The purported Ukraine connection arose from a YouTube video posted by "NRG Lab Research Council" in 2013, whose caption stated "Mika Newton helped to secure the rights to build a plant for the production of SH-boxes in Ukraine." claims video That single line from the caption of an NRG Lab promotional video was cited by Patrick Howley, who writes for The Epoch Times, a website known for promulgating pro-Trump misinformation, in advancing a link between Pelosi and an energy company that "did business in Ukraine." However, the claim that Newton, a Ukrainian singer born Oksana Stefanivna Hrytsay, had any connection to NRG Lab or Viscoil, appears to be false. cited known We found a Facebook page labelled "Mika_Newton.official" which appears distinctly unofficial, has very little content apart from "Ana Shell" promotional imagery, and includes the following description: "Hi, my name's Mika Newton. This is my official page to support projects that NRGLab Singapore makes":   Neither Newton's actual official Facebook page nor her Instagram account (where she engages in prolific product promotion) contain any mention of NRG Lab, Viscoil, or "Ana Shell." The link between NRG Lab, Newton, and production rights in Ukraine appears to be bogus. page account In any event, Pelosi appears to have ended his involvement with Viscoil before the bogus Mika Newton connection was ever made. A spokesperson for Speaker Pelosi told PolitiFact that: "The company [Viscoil] was based in Southern California and focused solely on U.S. business. The company later reorganized under a different name [NRG Lab], but Paul Pelosi Jr. played no role in the new entity." PolitiFact Pelosi Jr. did travel to Ukraine in 2017, but that trip related to his work for the Corporate Governance Initiative and had no discernible link to Viscoil, NRG Lab, or "Ana Shell." travel John Kerry This claim is riddled with errors. First off, former Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry doesn't have a biological son. The man in question is his stepson, Chris Heinz, who was born to Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and her first husband, John Heinz. Heinz appears to have been added to the list because of his former business partnership with Hunter Biden and their friend Devon Archer. The three men formed an investment firm called Rosemont Seneca, and both Archer and Biden later joined the board of Burisma. However, Heinz did not. In fact, according to reports by The Washington Post and the Washington Examiner, Heinz expressed his own reservations about Archer and Biden's decision at the time, which underlines just how inaccurate and wrongheaded the meme's inclusion of Heinz was. Post Examiner A spokesperson confirmed to Snopes that Heinz had never been involved in Burisma in any way, nor had he ever worked for or sat on the board of directors of any energy company, or even traveled to Ukraine. Mitt Romney Mitt and Ann Romney have five sons, and we found no evidence that any of them have ever had any involvement with either a "Ukrainian gas company" or an "energy company doing business in Ukraine." The couple's oldest son Tagg (49) has worked as a vice president at Reebok, chief marketing officer for the Los Angeles Dodgers, founded the investment firm Solamere Capital, and worked as an advisor and surrogate during his father's 2002 Massachussetts gubernatorial campaign as well as his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. officer founded Matt Romney was previously marketing director for the software company LavaStorm, worked as a real estate developer in California, and as a vice president for the real estate investment firm Excel Trust (which was acquired by the private equity firm Blackstone in 2015). marketing director developer Excel Trust acquired Josh Romney is president of the Romney Group, a Utah-based real estate and property investment firm, and chairman and owner of Intercap Lending, a mortgage lender. He previously worked as a real estate developer in Salt Lake City. Romney Group Intercap Lending developer Ben Romney is a radiologist in Utah and Idaho, and Craig Romney, the youngest son, has worked in music production for the advertising firm McGarry Bowen and later for the real estate investment firm Sundance Bay. radiologist Utah production McGarry Bowen Sundance Bay Contrary to @Education4Libs' claim, Romney had not called for President Trump's impeachment as of Oct. 8, undermining the putative basis for the Romney family's inclusion in the nonexistent conspiracy of wrongdoing to which the meme alluded. One America News Network.  "Son of House Speaker Pelosi Made Money in Ukraine, Used Her in Ads."
  4 October 2019. DCWhispers.com.  "Bingo! Clinton Foundation Donor Amounts by Country -- Guess Who Was #1."
  27 September 2019. Grimaldi, James V. and Rebecca Ballhaus.  "Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends."
  The Wall Street Journal.  19 March 2015. Braun, Stephen and Lynn Berry.  "The Story Behind Biden's Son, Ukraine and Trump's Claims."
  Associated Press.  23 September 2019. Vogel, Kenneth P. and Iuliia Mendel.  "Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies."
  The New York Times.  1 May 2019. Sonne, Paul et al . "The Gas Tycoon and the Vice-President's Son: The Story of Hunter Biden's Foray Into Ukraine."
   The Washington Post.  28 September 2019. Wilkinson, Tracy and Sergei L. Loiko.  "Former Ukraine Prosecutor Says He Saw No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden."
  The Los Angeles Times.  29 September 2019. Goodman, Alana.  "John Kerry's Son Cut Business Ties with Hunter Biden Over Ukrainian Oil Deal."
  The Washington Examiner.  27 August 2019. Henson, Steve.  "Little Takes Laid-Back Approach to Dodgers."
  The Los Angeles Times.  2 December 2004. Mims, Bob.  "Genealogy Website Gets Swamped by Searchers."
  The Spokesman-Review.  29 May 1999. Luo, Michael.  "Romneys Invade Iowa."
  The New York Times/em>.  11 August 2007. Olson, Kyle.  "Nancy Pelosi's Son Appears in Ukraine -- To Talk Soccer?"
  The American Mirror.  25 July 2017. One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016. In December 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, beset by a mounting, Democrat-led impeachment process, tried to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing in relation to his July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Trump's broader actions and policies toward Ukraine. That phone call has been the focus of intense scrutiny, amid allegations that Trump used U.S. aid to Ukraine (a U.S. ally) as leverage in attempting to force Zelensky to launch an investigation into former U.S. Vice President and leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and Biden's son, Hunter. On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted: tweeted "Breaking News: The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls. If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!"   We asked the White House to explain what the president was referring to and how those purported remarks amounted to an announcement by Zelensky that Trump had "done nothing wrong." We did not receive a response of any kind. However, Trump appeared to be alluding to a major interview Zelensky gave to four international news outlets: TIME in the U.S., Le Monde in France, Der Spiegel in Germany and Gazeta Wyborcza in Poland. Those news organizations published their respective transcripts of the interview on or around Dec. 2, with the exception of Der Spiegel, which had not yet released its own transcript at the time this fact check was published.  Zelensky answered one question that was directly and specifically relevant to his July 2019 phone call with Trump. The following is a breakdown of how three of the four outlets reported that section of the interview. TIME TIME Q: When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trumps decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo? Zelensky: Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. Thats not my thing...I dont want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. Were at war. If youre our strategic partner, then you cant go blocking anything for us. I think thats just about fairness. Its not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying. Le Monde Le Monde Q: Lors de cette conversation tlphonique, quand avez-vous senti le lien entre laide militaire amricaine et la demande denqute formule par M. Trump sur Hunter Biden, le fils de son rival dmocrate Joe Biden pour llection de 2020 ? Zelensky: Nous navons pas parl dun change du genre  Je te donne ci et tu me donnes a . Ce type de conversation, je lai eu avec le prsident russe lorsque nous avons chang les prisonniers. Et je peux lavoir avec lEurope pour quils nous disent :  Remplissez telle ou telle condition pour rejoindre lUnion europenne [UE].  LUkraine se trouve en Europe et peut faire partie de lUE. Et nous le voulons. L je comprendrais quil puisse y avoir un donnant-donnant... (Translated) Q: During that phone conversation, at what point did you sense the connection between American military aid and Mr. Trump's request for an inquiry into Hunter Biden, the son of his Democrat rival in the 2020 election, Joe Biden? Zelensky: We didn't talk about an exchange in terms of "You give my this and I give you that." I did have that type of conversation with the Russian president, when we conducted a prisoner exchange. And I could have [that type of conversation] with Europe if they say to us "Satisfy this or that condition in order to join the European Union." Ukraine is in Europe and could become part of the EU. And we want that. In that case I could understand having a give-and-take... Gazeta Wyborcza Gazeta Wyborcza Q: Jest wiele spekulacji na temat tego, kiedy pan zrozumia, e jest zwizek midzy amerykask wojenn pomoc i ledztwami, o ktre prosi Trump [w sprawie Huntera Bidena i firmy Burisma]? Zelensky: Ja nie rozmawiaem z Trumpem z pozycji "co za co". W taki sposb rozmawiaem z prezydentem Rosji  oddaj mi tych, a my oddamy tych [winiw]. Czego potrzebujemy od USA? Nie chcemy wyglda dzisiaj jak klient. Ale trzeba rozumie, e u nas toczy si wojna. Jeli jestemy strategicznymi partnerami, to nie mona nam czego blokowa. U nas byy posiedzenia z UE. Powiedziaem im otwarcie: zobaczcie, tak by nie moe, albo nas widzicie w UE, albo nie. My podkrelamy: Ukraina znajduje si w Europie i zakadamy, e moemy by czci UE, podzielamy te same wartoci. Tutaj wymiana co za co jest dla mnie zrozumia... (Translated) Q: There has been a lot of speculation about when you understood that there was a link between American aid and the investigations Trump was asking for [regarding Hunter Biden and Burisma]. Zelensky: I didn't talk to Trump in terms of "this for that." I did talk like that with Putin -- give them [prisoners] to me and I'll give them to you. What do we want from the U.S.? We don't want to look like a client. But you have to understand that we have a war zone going on here. If we're strategic partners, we can't block each other's business.  We had meetings with the EU. I told them explicitly: this is unacceptable. Either you see Ukraine as part of the EU or you don't. We emphasize: Ukraine is in Europe and we believe we can become part of the EU, we have the same core values. In that situation, a quid pro quo makes sense. Clearly, Zelensky did not say, word-for-word, that Trump had "done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and [the two men's] interactions or calls." However, Trump's tweet did not attribute that to Zelensky as a direct quotation, so it should not be evaluated as such. Rather, Trump was giving his own description or summary of what Zelensky had said. As we've seen, Zelensky did say that, in their July phone conversation, he and Trump did not discuss a quid pro quo agreement or arrangement in which Trump would release military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian authorities opening an investigation into the alleged (and unproven) activities of the Bidens in and with regard to Ukraine.  Without presenting supportive evidence, Trump and others have claimed that Joe Biden acted corruptly while he was vice president, because he pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire the country's top prosecutor in order to end an investigation into the owner of Burisma, a natural gas company whose board of directors included Biden's son, Hunter. However, former U.S. officials have rejected that theory, saying that Joe Biden pushed Ukraine to remove the prosecutor as part of a broader Obama administration drive against corruption in Ukraine. rejected The allegation that Trump used military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip, in exchange for an investigation that would prove damaging to one of his likely main rivals in the 2020 election, has so far undeniably been one of the principle allegations against the president. Therefore, when Zelensky said he and Trump did not discuss matters in terms of a "quid pro quo," he was undeniably exculpating Trump to a certain extent (whether or not Zelensky's description of the conversation actually measures up to what the White House call summary shows). As such, there is a measure of truth in Trump's claim that Zelensky said his American counterpart had done nothing wrong, but only as it relates specifically to that phone call.  call summary The allegations of wrongdoing against Trump extend beyond the contents of one particular phone call in July. For example, Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the EU, has testified before Congress that Trump directed a months-long campaign of lobbying and persuading Ukrainian authorities to investigate the Bidens, as well as discredited claims that Ukraine (rather than Russia) was responsible for online efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.  campaign According to Sondland, that broader policy involved Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, acting at the president's direction, as well as other administration officials, and involved Trump directing his officials to freeze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. In his December 2019 interview, Zelensky did not address those wider allegations about Trump's Ukraine policy  he spoke only about one particular phone call. Therefore, Trump was only partly accurate in summarizing and describing what Zelensky said as "President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls." Shuster, Simon. "'I Don't Trust Anyone at All.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks Out on Trump, Putin and a Divided Europe."
 TIME. 2 December 2019. Gatinois, Claire. "Volodymyr Zelensky: 'Nous Voulons un Vritable Cessez-le-Feu.'"
 Le Monde. 2 December 2019. Andrusieczko, Piotr. "Woodymyr Zeenski: Nie pjd na Donbas, zginyby setki tysicy ludzi."
 Gazeta Wyborcza. 2 December 2019. Riechmann, Deb. "Anatomy of the Phone Call Now Imperiling Trump's Presidency."
 The Associated Press. 12 October 2019. Levine, Mike. "Testimony and Texts: How the Trump-Ukraine Allegations Fit Together in a Timeline."
 ABC News. 20 November 2019. Claim:  During a hospital visit, President George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] As you may know, the President and Mrs. Bush visited the Washington Burn Center on Friday 14 September. Among those they visited was LTC Brian Birdwell, who was badly burned in the Pentagon attack. Mrs. Bush went into Brian's room, spoke to him for about a minute, all the time as if they had been long acquaintances. She then turned to Brian's wife Mel, who at this time had been at the hospital for probably 2 1/2 days, and apparently, according to Mel herself, was dirty, grimy and had blood on her shirt.  Mrs. Bush hugged Mel for what Mel said seemed like an eternity, just as if Mel were one of her closest family members.  Mrs. Bush then told Brian and Mel that there was "someone" there to see him.  The President then walked in, stood by Brian's bedside, asked Brian how he was doing, told him that he was very proud of them both and that they were his heroes.  The President then saluted Brian. Now, at this point in time, Brian is bandaged up pretty well. His hands are burned very badly as well as the back of him from the head down. His movements were very restricted.  Upon seeing the President saluting him, Brian began to slowly return the salute, taking, from the accounts so far, about 15-20 seconds to get his hand up to his head.  During all of this, 15-20 seconds, President Bush never moved, never dropped his salute. The President dropped his salute only when Brian was finished with his, and then gave Mel a huge hug for what also probably seemed like an eternity.  Pray for our leadership. Thank God for what we are, have, and will be.  As a note to those of you who might not be familiar with military protocol, the subordinate normally initiates a salute and will hold it until the superior officer returns the salute.  In the above incident, President Bush acted in the role of the subordinate to show his respect and high regard for the injured man. Origins:  Glurge   should always be taken with a grain of salt, and  given previous fabrications such as The Evangelical Prez and Keep the Change  glurge involving President Bush and military or religious matters should call for a few extra grains.  We're happy to report that this item requires no seasoning at all, however. The Evangelical Prez Keep the Change Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell, an Army officer a few months short of his 40th birthday, was just leaving a Pentagon restroom on the morning of September 11 when hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 was slammed into the building by terrorists.  Lt. Col. Birdwell was badly injured by the ensuing explosion and fire; fortunately, he collapsed under a hallway sprinkler, which helped douse the flames engulfing his prone body before rescuers pulled him from the collapsed section of the Pentagon.  Birdwell ended up in the burn treatment center at Washington Hospital Center with smoke-damaged lungs and burns over nearly half his body.  A couple of days later, as reported by several news outlets, Birdwell received an unexpected visit from his commander-in-chief, the President of the United States of America, who offered him the honor of a salute: Not long after Sept. 11, Birdwell had met the president.  He was awake for President Bush's visit, as it turned out  and aware enough to strain to return the salute the president had offered. He lifted his badly burned hand toward his injured forehead. When he could not quite reach it, he tried to bend his body toward his hand.  The president's eyes filled with tears.  Bush held firm until the wounded soldier let go.2   Two days later, Birdwell got a visit from his boss  President Bush, commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  "The president comes in and he says, 'Col. Birdwell,' and he salutes," [wife] Mel Birdwell recalled. "And Brian attempts to return the salute, and the president sees that he's returning the salute and he stands there and holds his salute with tears in his eyes."1 Birdwell's older brother, Wade, also confirmed the story via e-mail: I cannot tell you how grateful and truly proud I am that when Brian started to return that salute, despite his wounds, the president held his salute firmly and thereby permitted my brother the honor of demonstrating his and the true character of so very many others of our fighting men and women. Indeed, you should know that it was this very character that likely saved Brian's life in the first place. As Brian crawled through the fire, certain brave men and women pulled him from the carnage, carried him out to the parking lot, then into the adjoining street." After months of treatment and therapy, Lt. Col. Birdwell, who was awarded the Purple Heart, was able to leave the hospital to attend Thanksgiving Day services at his church in Springfield, Virginia, and to begin making trips home. Last updated:  22 February 2007    Sources:   1.  Aiken, Johnathan.  "A Pentagon Survivor's Story."   CNN.com.  15 December 2001.    2.   St. George, Donna.  "Hope Breathes Beneath Wounds."   The Washington Post.  2 December 2001  (p. A1). Echoing Gov.-elect John Kasichs pledge to cut taxes, Ohios incoming agriculture chief recently called for the elimination of the states estate tax.The tax has contributed to the declining number of family farms in Ohio, said State Rep. Jim Zehringer, a Republican from Northwest Ohio whom Kasich recently picked to lead the states Department of Agriculture.Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax, Zehringer said at a Nov. 16 news conference at which Kasich introduced him as the new agriculture director.Kasich, a Republican who defeated Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in November,has specifically called for the elimination of the tax, which Zehringer referred to as the inheritance tax, because he believes it punishes success. An estate tax is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else.PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look, given the farming remains one of Ohios key industries.First we looked to see if the number of family farms actually is decreasing at the rate Zehringer claims.Rob Nichols, a spokesman for John Kasich, said Zehringer based his claim on the United States Department of Agricultures statistics, specifically, an agricultural census the department conducts every five years.For his assessment, Zehringer compared figures for one classification of family farms. The USDA, however, also counts family-held corporations within its definition of family farms, according to Amanda Pomicter of the USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service. Family-held corporations represent only a fraction of family farms in Ohio, but their inclusion does color the picture of how fast the number of family farms are shrinking in the state.Here is a comparison over the last 15 years of the figures Zehringer used and statistics that include family-held corporations.Year         Family farms only     Family farms and corps1992         60,936                         62,5381997         69,123                         71,0992002         70,890                         72,5792007         66,382                         69,131Nichols told us that Zehringer used the most recent of these five-year stretches for his assertion. Ohio lost 4,508 family farms in that span for an average of about 902 farms a year. If the statistics Zehringer used showed a 900-farm-per-year decline, why did he ballpark the annual losses at 700? He was being conservative, Nichols said.Had Zehringer also included in his analysis farms owned by family-held corporations, he might have reduced the annual decline even further.In the same five year stretch, using the figures the USDA prefers, Ohio lost 3,448 family farms for an average of 690 lost farms per year.The U.S. Department of Agriculture wont begin counting farms for its 2012 census until the end of that year, so the figures for 2007 represent the most recent available data.Another point of clarity is needed for Zehringers assertion that the states inheritance tax is causing the state to lose family farms.John Kohlstrand, a spokesman for the Department of Taxation, said the state does not have an inheritance tax. He said inheritance taxes apply to each individual who receives property from an estate.Ohio has an estate tax, which is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else. In e-mails, Nichols told us that was what Zehringer was referring to and that it is universally known that some family farms are sold because the estate tax could not be paid.In Ohio, estates worth $338,333 or less are effectively exempt from the state estate tax due to a tax credit, which is available to all estates, of up to $13,900. A 6 percent tax rate applies to estates worth between $338,334 and $500,000. For estates worth more than $500,000, the tax is $9,700 plus 7 percent of the estates value. A federal estate tax also exists. It was phased out in 2010 as part of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, pending an extension by Congress. The U.S. Agriculture Department does not track how many family farms are lost due to estate taxes, said James Ramey, director of the Ohio field office of the USDAs National Agriculture Statistics Service.Neither does the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. But Joe Cornely, the bureaus spokesman, said Zehringer is absolutely right that the Ohio estate tax contributes to the decline in family farms. Sometimes a chunk of a farm is sold to pay federal and state estate taxes and, as a result, the farm is no longer commercially viable, Cornely said.The federal estate tax is more burdensome, but inheritance taxes, regardless whether its state or federal, can have negative consequences on the heirs, he saidThe food and agriculture industries are a $98 billion business in Ohio. The loss of family farms, particularly in light of Kasichs commitment to job creation, is sure to be something the incoming Agriculture chief will monitor.Zehringers data is somewhat dated, and he didnt include all types of family farms in his analysis. His statement is not far off the annual decline found in Ohio using statistics the USDA prefers. And ultimately, the differences in numbers dont impact his underlying point.As for the estate taxs role in the decline, its difficult to say exactly how many family farms were lost for that reason. But Cornely, an authority on Ohio agriculture, said his is sure some of the loses would be due to taxes.We rate the statement True. Claim:  Oprah Winfrey said that restaurant customers need not tip their servers more than 10%..  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Did Oprah Winfrey state that, in this economy, tipping 10% is acceptable? Origins:  Leaving a relatively substantial monetary tip for the waitstaff at the conclusion of a restaurant meal is the custom in some countries, including the U.S. and Canada. A gratuity amounting to 15% to 20% of the bill is now considered the standard or minimum tip, with even more left in recognition of superlative service. It is therefore little cause for surprise that any cultural icon's public voicing of an opinion that folks should leave no more than a 10% tip would raise the hackles of many in the service industry.  And so it was with the belief that Oprah Winfrey, beloved television talk show host, had instructed members of her audience to not leave more than a 10% tip when dining in restaurants, with such rumor often coupled with a further assertion that this advice was offered in recognition of the recession's having hit everyone hard. Such belief that Oprah had said it fit  well with a widely-held stereotype that African American customers tip less than do other restaurant patrons. In September 2009 a page on the social networking site Facebook raised the false "Oprah said not to tip more than 10%" claim. Titled "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments," the group stated as its purpose:  Against Oprah Winfrey has recently stated on her TV show that it is acceptable to tip servers 10% in our current economy. This group is being put together to show Oprah that her comments have a crippling affect on servers all over the world. As of 4 November 2009, "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments" has 37,228 members. Yet the claim that has inflamed so many is false. There is no evidence in support of the assertion that Oprah Winfrey recommended her audience tip waitstaff 10%, in response to economic recession or otherwise, on her television show or in her magazine. No one has yet to turn up a video clip from her show of her supposed  tipping advice or produce a copy of an article from  O, The Oprah Magazine in which such counsel was allegedly given.  Instead, material from both those venues state that restaurant goers should tip at least 15%. While we've yet to locate a video clip or news report of Oprah herself instructing the audience to pony up with 15% or better, there are examples of invited guests on her show or columnists in her magazine saying exactly that. In the "Ending Rudeness" segment of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which aired on 9 September 2008), Steven Dublanica, author of Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip  Confessions of a Cynical Waiter, sat beside Oprah and, with her nodding in agreement, offered this bit of advice for restaurant goers: Rudeness Don't tip less than 15 percent Waiters are paid wages well below the minimum wage  as little as $2.15 an hour in some states  with the expectation that they will earn the majority of their income through tips. In addition, some restaurants require waiters to pay around 20 to 30 percent of their tips to food runners, hostesses and bartenders.  "If you don't tip, then that person doesn't get paid," Steven says. "Literally." Of the "10 Do's and Don'ts of Restaurant Etiquette" proffered by The Oprah Winfrey Show via oprah.com, its official web site, the first is "Tip 15 percent or more." first Likewise, the "Guide to Tipping" published in the December 2002 issue of  O, The Oprah Magazine says:  Guide to Tipping Normally, 15 to 20 percent of the total bill  20 percent for a first-class place. Note that people tip more in urban areas. According to the Zagat Survey, the average gratuity in city restaurants across the United States is about 18 percent. In response to the rumor, HarpoBear (moderator of oprah.com's message board) posted a clarificationon 8 June 2009 (and repeated periodically since then) that said: posted We'd like to respond to the concerns raised about Oprah's thoughts on tipping. The truth is that Oprah has never said that people should tip less during the recession. She believes in generously compensating waiters and waitresses. While a November 2009 Facebook page marked a resurgence of the Oprah rumor, it wasn't the first time the claim had been bruited on that venue: In December 2008 a now defunct Facebook group titled "No, Oprah, it's not OK to tip 10%" repeated the gossip. The rumor comes in two forms: that Oprah herself directed her audience never to tip more than 10% or (far less frequently) that one of her guests did. One name that has been mentioned as the identity of the guest who gave such advice is financial guru Suze Orman, as in this 19 September 2009 blog entry:  Suze Orman blog entry It has been brought to my attention that Suze Orman went onto the Oprah Winfrey show some time ago to give some sound financial advice to all the Oprah-ites who bow down to the feet of the great and powerful O. [...] She said that when it comes time to tip you should just leave 10% instead of 15%. Barbara "the ten percent dissolution" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 November 2009    Day Owen, Sarah.  "Servers at Restaurants See Dropoff in Gratuities."   Augusta Chronicle.  19 December 2008.    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. Denmark is a big shame The sea is stained in red and in the mean while it's not because of the climate effects of nature. It's because of the cruelty that the human beings (civilised human) kill hundreds of the famous and intelligent Calderon dolphins. This happens every year in Feroe iland in Denmark. In this slaughter the main participants are young teens. WHY? To show that they are adults and mature.... BULLLLsh In this big celebration, nothing is missing for the fun. Everyone is participating in one way or the other, killing or looking at the cruelty "supporting like a spectator" Is it necessary to mention that the dolphin calderon, like all the other species of dolphins, it's near instinction and they get near men to play and interact. In a way of PURE friendship They don't die instantly; they are cut 1, 2 or 3 times with thick hocks. And at that time the dolphins produce a grim extremely compatible with the cry of a new born child. But he suffers and there's no compassion till this sweet being slowly dies in its own blood Its enough! We will send this mail until this email arrives in any association defending the animals, we won't only read. That would make us accomplices, viewers. Take care of the world, it is your home!      The photographs displayed above were taken in 2005 and document a drive hunt (commonly known as a "grind") of long-finned pilot whales by residents of the Faroe Islands (which are an autonomous province of Denmark), an activity that has long been a subject of international controversy. document long-finned Faroe Islands The whale hunt has been a part of the Faroe Island culture for hundreds of years, but in recent decades the practice has increasingly become the subject of international protest and condemnation. Supporters of the hunt maintain that the killing of pilot whales is "an age-old communal, noncommercial hunt aimed at meeting the community's need for whale meat and blubber," that the animals are dealt with so quickly that their pain is brief, and that whale meat accounts for a quarter of the Faroe islanders' annual meat consumption. Conservationists charge that the hunts, which may take hundreds of whales at a time, are barbaric and pointless, that "the practice is outdated, cruel and unnecessary for a place with one of the highest standards of living in Europe," and that most of the whales go to waste (either being left on the beach to rot or thrown back to sea after they are killed. According to Russell Fielding, a geographer from the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee: The Faroese are opportunistic hunters who launch a grind only when specific conditions are met. The animals must be close to shore, near one of 23 beaches approved as a landing beach. The weather and currents have to be calm enough. And there have to be enough participants to crew the dozen or so powerboats required to drive the animals toward shore. In some years, such as in 2008, conditions weren't right and no whales were taken. But over the past three centuries, the Faroese have taken an average of 838 pilot whales and 75 dolphins each year, Fielding reported in a 2012 study. The Faroese usually target long-finned pilot whales, says Fielding, although they will also take bottlenose dolphins, white-sided dolphins, and Risso's dolphins. Risso's dolphins are sometimes landed even though they aren't on the Faroe government's list of species approved for hunting. None of the species are considered endangered, although the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists long-finned pilot whales as "data deficient," meaning there isn't enough scientific evidence to judge the status of the North Atlantic population. A Faroe Islands whaling site page describes such hunts unfolding as follows: whaling site Whale drives only take place when a school of pilot whales is sighted close to land, which is most often from a local fishing boat or ferry, and when sea and weather conditions make it possible. This can take place at any time of the year, but catches are most common in July and August when the days are long and the weather is more stable. Notice of the school is sent to the elected whaling officials and to the district administrator (sslumaur) responsible for the whale drive, and is spread as widely and quickly as possible in the local community so that enough people and boats can join in the drive. Employers usually make allowances for members of their staff to take time off during whale drives. The boats gather in a wide semicircle behind the whales and slowly and quietly begin to drive themtowards the chosen authorised bay. On the whaling foremans signal, loose stones and stones attached to lines are thrown into the water behind the whales, helping to herd the whales towards the beach where they become stranded. According to the regulations, any group of whales which cannot be beached in this manner must be driven out to sea again. A crucial factor in ensuring an effective whale drive is the organisation of participants, both in boats and on shore, in addition to prevailing weather and tidal conditions during driving and beaching. The spontaneous nature of a whale drive requires swift mobilisation of manpower to drive and kill a group of large wild animals quickly. Whale drives are only initiated when whales are sighted by chance close to land. Faroese animal welfare legislation, which also applies to whaling, requires that animals are killed as quickly and with as little suffering as possible. Whales are killed on the shore and in the shallows of bays especially authorised for the purpose. A regulation spinal lance must be used to sever the spinal cord, which also severs the major blood supply to the brain, ensuring both loss of consciousness and death within seconds. This, in addition to the supplementary use of the traditional whaling knife, if necessary, is the most efficient and humane means of killing beached pilot whales safely, with many participants involved at the same time. In recent years, two new items of equipment have been developed and formally approved and required as standard equipment. The blow-hole hook used to secure the whales causes no injury prior to slaughter and is now widely used. The spinal lance has now also been introduced as the preferred standard equipment for killing pilot whales. It has been shown to reduce killing time to 1-2 seconds while also improving accuracy and safety (see also under Whaling and animal welfare). The Faroes participate actively in the work of the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods, where veterinary experts and experienced hunters from different countries share information and work to develop best practices for the humane killing of marine mammals. In 1986 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) introduced "zero catch limits for commercial whaling"; however, the IWC's rules still allow for subsistence hunting in some parts of the world, and the application of their regulations to long-finned pilot whales is somewhat ambiguous since (despite their name) those animals are not whales proper; they are (like dolphins) small cetaceans, and they belong to the same biological family (Delphinidae) as dolphins. IWC small cetaceans In late 2008, chief medical officers of the Faroe Islands advised that they no longer considered pilot whales to be fit for human consumption because the animals' meat and blubber had been found to contain too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives. advised As noted above, the Faroe Islands are an autonomous province of Denmark and not a part of Denmark itself; essentially a self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark, with their own prime minister and legislature. MacKenzie, Debora.  "Faroe Islanders Told to Stop Eating 'Toxic' Whales."   New Scientist.  28 November 2008. Environmental News Network.  "Conservation Groups Call for an End to Faroe Island Whale Hunts."   CNN.com.  11 September 2000. Los Angeles Times.  "Faroe Islands Reject Whale-Kill Protests."   27 August 1985. Reuters.  "Faroe Islands Fishermen Cited for Brutality in Whale Hunt."   Toronto Star.  22 June 1987  (p. A24). Reuters.  "Islands' Whale Hunt, Part of National Identity, Angers Activisits."   Rocky Mountain News.  29 October 1994.