Datasets:

---

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall or Instagram feed will protect you from having all your posts and photos made public.

Contradiction

Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall have been periodically circulated on that social network for many years, and all of them are variants of an older rumor holding that posting a similar notice on a website would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy: Hi all. Don't forget today starts the new Instagram rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 9 News talked about the change in Instagram's privacy policy. I do not give Instagram or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Instagram is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste. Wondered why Instagram was so boring! Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. Better to be safe than sorry. An attorney advised us to post this. Good enough for me. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tacitly understood that you are allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates. I HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION.' In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman - knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer - will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. First off, the 'problem' this ineffective solution supposedly addresses is a non-existent one: Facebook isn't claiming copyright to the personal information, photographs, and other material that their users are posting to the social network, nor have they announced any plans that would make all Facebook posts public (even previously deleted ones) regardless of a user's privacy settings): In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced they were considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, the company issued a statement noting that: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more: www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] - unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. 'We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts - when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,' Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. 'Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.' Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] 'misleading and not true.' He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a 'non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything.' In any case, Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an 'open capital entity' has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You can neither alter your acceptance of that agreement nor restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account, citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), or referencing the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network 'a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).' Facebook adds, '[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.' While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Similar memes A variation on this meme related to Snapchat photos, which was similarly false, went viral in summer 2019.

in summer 2019.

A photograph of non-respirator ear loop mask packaging demonstrates that such masks are ineffective at protecting against the spread of COVID-19.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic in 2020, as Americans were being increasingly required to wear face masks in order to patronize businesses such as grocery stores, some social media users began circulating images questioning the efficacy of wearing those masks, such as the following: This photograph (and others like it) reflects accurate disclaimers on the packaging of face masks that caution users, 'THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A RESPIRATOR AND WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY PROTECTION AGAINST COVID-19 (CORONAVIRUS) OR OTHER VIRUSES OR CONTAMINANTS.' Such disclaimers do not mean that wearing masks is ineffective at limiting the spread of COVID-19, however, but rather that viewers are misunderstanding the function and purpose of different types of face masks. The type of mask known as a N95 respirator is, in the words of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), 'a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and very efficient filtration of airborne particles': The primary purpose of N95 respirator masks is to protect the wearer from airborne particles (including small aerosol particles), such as those that might cause disease. That is why such masks are worn by health care personnel who are treating patients in a medical setting, to help prevent those personnel from contracting illnesses their patients might spread to them. These masks also, of course, provide some measure of protection for the patients as well: On the other hand, the primary purpose of (cloth) ear loop masks (like the type represented by the picture of packaging seen above) is to protect other people by blocking large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter containing infectious agents that the (infected) wearer might release through coughing, sneezing, talking, and the like. (Although, again, they do provide some small measure of protection to the wearer, but not at nearly as high a level as a respirator mask would.) A Wirecutter article and video explained the difference in these two types of masks: Surgical masks do not protect against viruses. At best, these cloth or latex barriers may help prevent the spread of germs (via coughs or sneezes) when worn by folks who are ill. A properly fitted N95 respirator mask, on the other hand, is far more likely to protect against a virus, as it can filter particulates as small as 0.3 micron. An N95 mask can filter properly only when it has created an airtight seal around your mouth and nose. Health-care workers who may be exposed to pathogens, for example, are required to go through annual N95 fit testing to ensure they are wearing the masks correctly. If you have N95 masks at home and you'd prefer to wear one in public, doing so won't hurt. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that members of the public use simple cloth face coverings when in a public setting to slow the spread of the virus, since this will help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others. In short, you shouldn't count on ear loop masks to protect you from COVID-19 - you should wear them mainly as a public service to help protect others from you.

In short, you shouldn't count on ear loop masks to protect you from COVID-19 - you should wear them mainly as a public service to help protect others from you.

An image shows the 'horngus of a dongfish,' which is 'attached by a scungle to a kind of dillsack (the nutte sac).

Contradiction

How many testicle-related jokes can one slip into a single meme? Someone managed to squeeze several of them into the following footnoted scholarly graphic, purportedly showing the 'horngus of a dongfish,' which is 'attached by a scungle to a kind of dillsack (the nutte sac)': But this image does not depict a horngus (or anything else) attached to a dongfish - a creature that does not exist. It's an altered version of a Wikipedia entry for Aristotle's theory of biology, which includes a site note describing that 'Aristotle recorded that the embryo of a dogfish was attached by a cord to a kind of placenta (the yolk sac)': Dear @kschaef95, we are sad to inform you that there is no such thing as a dongfish, but the image you tweeted was likely modified from a similar image and caption on the Wikipedia page for Aristotle's Biology. 🤓 https://t.co/pnKxSeSS4G pic.twitter.com/IkUqUVgv0V - Wikimedia UK (@wikimediauk) April 15,

How many testicle-related jokes can one slip into a single meme? Someone managed to squeeze several of them into the following footnoted scholarly graphic, purportedly showing the 'horngus of a dongfish,' which is 'attached by a scungle to a kind of dillsack (the nutte sac)': But this image does not depict a horngus (or anything else) attached to a dongfish - a creature that does not exist. It's an altered version of a Wikipedia entry for Aristotle's theory of biology, which includes a site note describing that 'Aristotle recorded that the embryo of a dogfish was attached by a cord to a kind of placenta (the yolk sac)': Dear @kschaef95, we are sad to inform you that there is no such thing as a dongfish, but the image you tweeted was likely modified from a similar image and caption on the Wikipedia page for Aristotle's Biology. 🤓 https://t.co/pnKxSeSS4G pic.twitter.com/IkUqUVgv0V - Wikimedia UK (@wikimediauk) April 15,

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), which was adopted as a voluntary curriculum in the state in March 2021, calls for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians and makes students honor Aztec gods of human sacrifice in their chants.

Contradiction

After many years and thousands of comments from the public, California in late March 2021 adopted an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for K-12 students across the state. The approved version was the fourth draft of a curriculum in development for over four years. While it is voluntary for schools to adopt, many argue it is necessary for students to learn about the histories and experiences of ethnic groups that include Black people, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Jewish and Arab Americans. But partisan media outlets pulled segments of the curriculum out of context and shared misleading information about what was being taught to students. Christopher Rufo, a writer for the conservative think tank Discovery Institute, shared a tweet thread where he argued that - among other things - the curriculum taught ''Countergenocide' against white Christians' and called on students to appeal to the Aztec gods, 'including the god of human sacrifice.' In an article, Rufo pulled sections from R. Tolteka Cuauhtin's book 'Rethinking Ethnic Studies' and claimed his writings had directly influenced the contents of the ESMC. Cuauhtin was a co-chair of the ESMC and developed some of the program. Rufo wrote that Cuauhtin and the ESMC's 'ultimate goal is to 'decolonize' American society and establish a new regime of 'countergenocide' [...] which will displace white Christian culture.' SCOOP: California's proposed 'ethnic studies' curriculum calls for the 'decolonization' of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Here's the story.🧵 - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The curriculum includes an official 'ethnic studies community chant,' in which students appeal to the Aztec gods-including the god of human sacrifice-for the power to become 'warriors' for 'social justice.' Students seek a 'a revolutionary spirit' through these incantations. pic.twitter.com/PR5dQl6mSy - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The original co-chair of the model curriculum advocates for 'countergenocide' in his book, which is cited throughout the curriculum document and included in the bibliography. All of the original source documents are on my website. I'm not 'overstating'-I'm pointing it out. - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 10, 2021 The Washington Times added to the debate with the headline, 'California now wants to teach 'counter-genocide' to over [six million] students in its public schools.' Rufo also appeared on Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle,' where anchor Laura Ingraham echoed Rufo's tweets that alleged the chants would 'honor the Aztec god of human sacrifice': As I told @IngrahamAngle: We should radically decentralize the public school system and give parents the $15,000 a year per child to choose their own education. Families deserve an education that reflects their values-not the new woke orthodoxy of many public schools. pic.twitter.com/5Pcnms3GHd - Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 15, 2021 We reviewed the curriculum and reached out to Rufo, Cuauhtin, and the California Department of Education to determine if there was any truth to these claims. In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

In sum, we found the claims to be largely false and misleading representations of the curriculum. Does the Curriculum Invoke 'Countergenocide'? Rufo highlighted the use of the term 'countergenocide,' saying it had been used in Cuauhtin's own writing and was being propagated by the ethnic studies program. But while it's true that Cuauhtin used the term in his book, we found no evidence of it being used in the ESMC, nor any language that advocated for a genocide against white Christians. Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education, confirmed that the term and the concept were not in the curriculum. Referencing Rufo's tweets and Ingraham's show, Cuauhtin, an ethnic studies educator, explained the meaning of 'countergenocide' to us: 'Within my chapter, it does not in any way whatsoever mean genocide against white Christians. I would never encourage genocide against any group of people; on the contrary, ethnic studies is about the opposite of that; it is about healing, honest reconciliation, and life. Countergenocide, refers to anti-genocide, to go against genocide, and to stop genocide.' Rufo, he said, took one term from his book completely out of context, 'flipped it to fit his own racist narrative,' and 'an onslaught of fake news right wing media ran with it.' In an email, Rufo disputed our characterization of his claims, as well as Cuauhtin's usage of the term. '[Every] modern scholarly reference to 'countergenocide' is to actual genocidal violence in Africa and elsewhere; it's not simply 'against genocide,' it's retributive genocide and can be interpreted as such,' he said. Indeed, the term has been used in language surrounding the Rwandan genocide, to describe reprisal killings of the Hutu, though Cuauhtin's language does not use the term in the same way. Cuauhtin added that part of the curriculum involved building 'solidarity among communities including white people,' adding that 'Jesus himself would undoubtedly be against the racist oppression and dehumanization done in his name.' He expressed the importance of 'recognizing intersectionality' - a term used to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics 'intersect' with one another and overlap - particularly the ways in which we can be privileged and oppressed simultaneously. 'Empathy, love, mutual respect, knowledge of self, self actualization, community actualization, and humanization, that's what is really important within these concepts and the curriculum,' he said. Chants Honoring Gods of Human Sacrifice? The 'community chants' as outlined in the curriculum contain no mention of gods, per se, or of human sacrifice. The two offending deities highlighted by conservative outlets were 'Tezkatlipoka' and 'Huitzilopochtli.' Both words, however, were used as concepts, not references to actual deities, in the chant: Tezkatlipoka, Tezkatlipoka, x2 smoking mirror, self-reflection We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective by silencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love, for our gente representin' justice, (justice) local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice). [...] Huitzilopochtli, huitzilopochtli, x2 hummingbird to the left, yollotl, corazon, heart, ganas, the will to action as we grow in, consciousness must be willing to be proactive, not just thinkin' and talkin' but makin' things happen, with agency, resiliency, & a revolutionary spirit that's positive, progressive, creative, native, Passion everlasting work hard in action, tap in, to the spark of our universal heart, pulsating creation huitzilopochtli cause like sunlight, the light inside of us, in will to action's what brings ... Cuauhtin told us that the word 'tezkatlipoka' literally means 'smoking mirror' and represents 'self reflection' as a way to build character and self-determination, affirming who students are as human beings, with dignity. 'Huitzilopochtli' literally translates to 'hummingbird to the left, or to the concept of the will to act.' He added, '[It is] so frustrating how the legacies of white supremacist colonial lies continue to be weaponized by the right with their anti-Indigenous racism; their claims are false, and do not at all reflect the framing in [the curriculum].' These terms come from indigenous Mexican traditions that affirm four broad concepts in the student community chant. According to a paper from the National Association for Multicultural Education, the four concepts are '[Tezkatlipoca] (self-reflection), Quetzalcoatl (precious and beautiful knowledge), Huitzilopochtli (the will to act), and Xipe Totec (transformation),' which the ESMC also refers to as the 'In Lak Ech Affirmation' (love, unity and mutual respect). Chapter 5 'Lesson Resources' of the ESMC describes the chant as follows: The following is also based on In Lak Ech (love, unity, mutual respect) and Panche Be (seeking the roots of the truth) as is elaborated by Roberto Cintli Rodriguez in Our Sacred Maiz is Our Mother: Indigeneity and Belonging in the Americas. However, this chant goes a level deeper into the Nahui Ollin (Four Movements), as taught by Tupac Enrique Acosta of Tonatierra, and integrated by ELA teacher Curtis Acosta formerly of the Mexican American Studies Department of Tucson Unified School District (before Arizona HB 2281). This is an adaption of the Nahui Ollin, into poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. Nowhere do these chants reference honoring human sacrifice. Roark, conveying the responses of committee members who developed the curriculum, told us that the chant 'adapts traditional Mayan/Aztecan concepts centering on love, unity, introspection and mutual respect into a poetic, rhythmic, hip hop song form. For example, the song begins with these sentences, first in Spanish, and then in English: 'You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.'' Roark added that media reports 'used isolated word phrases out-of-context, and have misleadingly paired those out-of-context phrases with language that is simply not in the model curriculum to misrepresent what the model curriculum actually conveys.' Furthermore, he said, the model curriculum is a 'collection of ideas and samples' for districts across the state, and use of the materials is not mandated in any way. Each school district chooses materials that serve the demographics of its respective communities. Conservative claims about school curricula do highlight historical narratives surrounding the Aztec deities. According to online resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Tezkatlipoka was the god of the Great Bear constellation and the night sky, and under 'his influence the practice of human sacrifice was introduced into central Mexico.' Huitzilopochtli was also the Aztec god of sun and war who received human sacrifices in the form of 'human blood and hearts.' Cuauhtin, however, said, 'In different [indigenous] communities, we never believed that myth of mass human sacrifice,' he told us. 'The original telling comes from colonizers' accounts.' While some interpretations are based on artistic works from the time, he argued that it was 'propagated as a factual norm by a dominant white narrative.' Indeed, these arguments are echoed by Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, who said that he found 'no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs.' Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that human sacrifice was indeed a part of Aztec religious practice, though the numbers of people killed in this manner are disputed. Some have argued that this was a military strategy involving war captives. If this did occur, the Aztecs certainly were not the only major civilization at the time with such practices. Rufo argues that the historical record on human sacrifice is quite clear: 'Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and specifically, Huitzilopachtli is the god of human sacrifice (among other things),' he wrote in an email response to this piece. 'This is documented in dozens of books, including a recent study from Victor Davis Hanson that sifted through estimates of human sacrifice, with a modest estimate of 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and the Aztecs reigned for roughly a century - the math is in my favor.' Even though the curriculum does not tell students to honor the gods of human sacrifice, as claimed by conservatives including Ingraham, those figures have been associated with human sacrifice by some accounts. We should note that Arizona's Tucson school districts faced criticism from conservatives for their ethnic studies program back in 2010, which also used this chant. Public officials accused the districts of illegally promoting ideas of ethnic solidarity and overthrowing the U.S. government. Under pressure from the government, Tucson's school board shut down the courses in 2011, even though a state audit that year found that students who took the prohibited courses performed better in statewide tests and graduated at higher rates. An Arizona law also banned the ethnic studies courses, a move that was found to be discriminatory in 2017 by a federal judge. In sum, conservative claims regarding the ESMC are largely misleading and incorrect, given that the curriculum neither calls for students to honor gods of human sacrifice - the terms used are meant to illustrate concepts - nor for a 'countergenocide' against white Christians. Even though debate exists about the prevalence of human sacrifice and its association with specific Aztec deities, students were not being made to honor these deities. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates March 31, 2021: Updated to include Christopher Rufo's comments.

Washington state has updated their curriculum standards to include teaching 'transgenderism' to Kindergarteners.

Contradiction

On 1 June 2016 the web site Daily Caller published an article reporting that schools in Washington state planned to begin teaching 'transgenderism to Kindergartners, based on updated state curriculum guidelines released online. The article didn't quite manage to connect the dots between the linked curriculum update and 'teaching transgenderism' to Kindergarten students, save for a reference to an expectation that Kindergarten students would 'understand there are many ways to express gender': By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a 'core idea' of public K-12 education ... While some aspects of sexual health aren't taught K-12 (HIV prevention begins in fourth grade), one component of sexual health titled 'Self-Identity' begins in kindergarten, where students will be expected to 'Understand there are many ways to express gender.' As part of an aspect of sexual health titled 'Healthy Relationships,' kindergarteners will learn to distinguish between 'safe and unwanted touch.' They will also learn to 'Recognize people have the right to refuse giving or receiving unwanted touch.' OSPI did not answer a question about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners. Subsequent portions of the article hinged on the selective quoting of responses from Nathan Olson, communications manager for Washington's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to Daily Caller. Olson was quoted only in part, and the precise wording of the questions posed to him was not provided by the Daily Caller: By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles can vary considerably' and 'Understand [the] importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity,' as part of the 'Self-Identity' component of sexual health. Gender identity is defined by the state as 'Someone's inner sense of their gender.' 'The standards don't define 'gender spectrum.' But self-identity is a key component,' Olson said when asked whether learning that gender is a 'spectrum' is considered part of learning about 'gender identity.' We contacted Nathan Olson ourselves, and unlike the Daily Caller, we're reproducing his response in full rather than selectively editing it to support a preconceived bias: I'll start with the Daily Caller, headline. First, what does 'transgenderism' mean? We don't define that term in the standards; I've never seen the word before this article. Second, the headline itself is simply false: The 'state' doesn't 'teach' transgenderism. A simple reading of the standards shows that the state - because of state law - is responsible for establishing and periodically revising state learning standards. It's up to districts to adopt curricula, and it's up to teachers in schools to teach the material. Third, 'transgender' - let alone 'transgenderism' - only appears in the glossary; it doesn't appear in any of the standards or topics or outcomes. The mistake regarding what will be taught is repeated in the first sentence of the story. Districts decide which topics will be taught: A district can decide that its community norms don't include self-identity, and thus it won't be taught. He cannot know that every school will be teaching gender expression any more than I can know that. He's right that we didn't issue a press release. Typically we don't when we update standards. We did with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Those were special cases involving standards adopted by multiple states. In contrast, we didn't put out releases when we adopted arts standards in Spring 2011, nor when we adopted world language standards in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

Washington state has updated their curriculum standards to include teaching 'transgenderism' to Kindergarteners.

Contradiction

On 1 June 2016 the web site Daily Caller published an article reporting that schools in Washington state planned to begin teaching 'transgenderism to Kindergartners, based on updated state curriculum guidelines released online. The article didn't quite manage to connect the dots between the linked curriculum update and 'teaching transgenderism' to Kindergarten students, save for a reference to an expectation that Kindergarten students would 'understand there are many ways to express gender': By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a 'core idea' of public K-12 education ... While some aspects of sexual health aren't taught K-12 (HIV prevention begins in fourth grade), one component of sexual health titled 'Self-Identity' begins in kindergarten, where students will be expected to 'Understand there are many ways to express gender.' As part of an aspect of sexual health titled 'Healthy Relationships,' kindergarteners will learn to distinguish between 'safe and unwanted touch.' They will also learn to 'Recognize people have the right to refuse giving or receiving unwanted touch.' OSPI did not answer a question about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners. Subsequent portions of the article hinged on the selective quoting of responses from Nathan Olson, communications manager for Washington's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to Daily Caller. Olson was quoted only in part, and the precise wording of the questions posed to him was not provided by the Daily Caller: By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles can vary considerably' and 'Understand [the] importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity,' as part of the 'Self-Identity' component of sexual health. Gender identity is defined by the state as 'Someone's inner sense of their gender.' 'The standards don't define 'gender spectrum.' But self-identity is a key component,' Olson said when asked whether learning that gender is a 'spectrum' is considered part of learning about 'gender identity.' We contacted Nathan Olson ourselves, and unlike the Daily Caller, we're reproducing his response in full rather than selectively editing it to support a preconceived bias: I'll start with the Daily Caller, headline. First, what does 'transgenderism' mean? We don't define that term in the standards; I've never seen the word before this article. Second, the headline itself is simply false: The 'state' doesn't 'teach' transgenderism. A simple reading of the standards shows that the state - because of state law - is responsible for establishing and periodically revising state learning standards. It's up to districts to adopt curricula, and it's up to teachers in schools to teach the material. Third, 'transgender' - let alone 'transgenderism' - only appears in the glossary; it doesn't appear in any of the standards or topics or outcomes. The mistake regarding what will be taught is repeated in the first sentence of the story. Districts decide which topics will be taught: A district can decide that its community norms don't include self-identity, and thus it won't be taught. He cannot know that every school will be teaching gender expression any more than I can know that. He's right that we didn't issue a press release. Typically we don't when we update standards. We did with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Those were special cases involving standards adopted by multiple states. In contrast, we didn't put out releases when we adopted arts standards in Spring 2011, nor when we adopted world language standards in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

Washington state has updated their curriculum standards to include teaching 'transgenderism' to Kindergarteners.

Contradiction

On 1 June 2016 the web site Daily Caller published an article reporting that schools in Washington state planned to begin teaching 'transgenderism to Kindergartners, based on updated state curriculum guidelines released online. The article didn't quite manage to connect the dots between the linked curriculum update and 'teaching transgenderism' to Kindergarten students, save for a reference to an expectation that Kindergarten students would 'understand there are many ways to express gender': By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a 'core idea' of public K-12 education ... While some aspects of sexual health aren't taught K-12 (HIV prevention begins in fourth grade), one component of sexual health titled 'Self-Identity' begins in kindergarten, where students will be expected to 'Understand there are many ways to express gender.' As part of an aspect of sexual health titled 'Healthy Relationships,' kindergarteners will learn to distinguish between 'safe and unwanted touch.' They will also learn to 'Recognize people have the right to refuse giving or receiving unwanted touch.' OSPI did not answer a question about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners. Subsequent portions of the article hinged on the selective quoting of responses from Nathan Olson, communications manager for Washington's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to Daily Caller. Olson was quoted only in part, and the precise wording of the questions posed to him was not provided by the Daily Caller: By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles can vary considerably' and 'Understand [the] importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity,' as part of the 'Self-Identity' component of sexual health. Gender identity is defined by the state as 'Someone's inner sense of their gender.' 'The standards don't define 'gender spectrum.' But self-identity is a key component,' Olson said when asked whether learning that gender is a 'spectrum' is considered part of learning about 'gender identity.' We contacted Nathan Olson ourselves, and unlike the Daily Caller, we're reproducing his response in full rather than selectively editing it to support a preconceived bias: I'll start with the Daily Caller, headline. First, what does 'transgenderism' mean? We don't define that term in the standards; I've never seen the word before this article. Second, the headline itself is simply false: The 'state' doesn't 'teach' transgenderism. A simple reading of the standards shows that the state - because of state law - is responsible for establishing and periodically revising state learning standards. It's up to districts to adopt curricula, and it's up to teachers in schools to teach the material. Third, 'transgender' - let alone 'transgenderism' - only appears in the glossary; it doesn't appear in any of the standards or topics or outcomes. The mistake regarding what will be taught is repeated in the first sentence of the story. Districts decide which topics will be taught: A district can decide that its community norms don't include self-identity, and thus it won't be taught. He cannot know that every school will be teaching gender expression any more than I can know that. He's right that we didn't issue a press release. Typically we don't when we update standards. We did with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Those were special cases involving standards adopted by multiple states. In contrast, we didn't put out releases when we adopted arts standards in Spring 2011, nor when we adopted world language standards in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

Washington state has updated their curriculum standards to include teaching 'transgenderism' to Kindergarteners.

Contradiction

On 1 June 2016 the web site Daily Caller published an article reporting that schools in Washington state planned to begin teaching 'transgenderism to Kindergartners, based on updated state curriculum guidelines released online. The article didn't quite manage to connect the dots between the linked curriculum update and 'teaching transgenderism' to Kindergarten students, save for a reference to an expectation that Kindergarten students would 'understand there are many ways to express gender': By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a 'core idea' of public K-12 education ... While some aspects of sexual health aren't taught K-12 (HIV prevention begins in fourth grade), one component of sexual health titled 'Self-Identity' begins in kindergarten, where students will be expected to 'Understand there are many ways to express gender.' As part of an aspect of sexual health titled 'Healthy Relationships,' kindergarteners will learn to distinguish between 'safe and unwanted touch.' They will also learn to 'Recognize people have the right to refuse giving or receiving unwanted touch.' OSPI did not answer a question about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners. Subsequent portions of the article hinged on the selective quoting of responses from Nathan Olson, communications manager for Washington's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to Daily Caller. Olson was quoted only in part, and the precise wording of the questions posed to him was not provided by the Daily Caller: By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles can vary considerably' and 'Understand [the] importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity,' as part of the 'Self-Identity' component of sexual health. Gender identity is defined by the state as 'Someone's inner sense of their gender.' 'The standards don't define 'gender spectrum.' But self-identity is a key component,' Olson said when asked whether learning that gender is a 'spectrum' is considered part of learning about 'gender identity.' We contacted Nathan Olson ourselves, and unlike the Daily Caller, we're reproducing his response in full rather than selectively editing it to support a preconceived bias: I'll start with the Daily Caller, headline. First, what does 'transgenderism' mean? We don't define that term in the standards; I've never seen the word before this article. Second, the headline itself is simply false: The 'state' doesn't 'teach' transgenderism. A simple reading of the standards shows that the state - because of state law - is responsible for establishing and periodically revising state learning standards. It's up to districts to adopt curricula, and it's up to teachers in schools to teach the material. Third, 'transgender' - let alone 'transgenderism' - only appears in the glossary; it doesn't appear in any of the standards or topics or outcomes. The mistake regarding what will be taught is repeated in the first sentence of the story. Districts decide which topics will be taught: A district can decide that its community norms don't include self-identity, and thus it won't be taught. He cannot know that every school will be teaching gender expression any more than I can know that. He's right that we didn't issue a press release. Typically we don't when we update standards. We did with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Those were special cases involving standards adopted by multiple states. In contrast, we didn't put out releases when we adopted arts standards in Spring 2011, nor when we adopted world language standards in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

in Summer 2010. The sentence, 'OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners' - while technically correct - was one question of at least a half-dozen in an email. It was an honest oversight that we missed the question. If he'd really wanted an answer, he could have asked the question a second time. The next paragraph, which begins, 'By third grade, students will be expected to 'Explain that gender roles...'' again confuses the standards and the topics and outcomes. Standards are required to be taught. There are eight in health and five in physical education Topics aren't required to be taught (with three exceptions: HIV prevention, CPR instruction and use of automated external defibrillators). Not all third graders in the state will be expected to explain anything about gender roles: It will be up to each district to determine that. The mistake is repeated in five straight paragraphs, which begin, 'By fourth grade ...,' 'In fifth grade,' 'By the end of elementary school,' 'In seventh grade' and 'This education continues through high school...' The reporter also correctly but selectively quotes me about what the possible penalties could be for a student that doesn't want to learn material about self-identity. My full quote, which I am pasting from my email to him, reads as follows: 'So we don't exactly know what a school would do if a student failed to complete an assignment because he/she opposed the materials being taught. From a practical standpoint, though, it seems highly unlikely that a student would fail a class because of that issue. No individual learning outcome holds that much weight, given how extensive the range of outcomes is and how few hours of health instruction - and especially sexual health education - students receive. Besides, I think if a student failed for that specific reason, the student (and parent) would be well within his/her rights to file a grievance.' The Daily Caller linked to Washington State's 'Health and Physical Education State K-12 Learning Standards' [PDF] as evidence in support their reference to 'teaching transgenderism to Kindergartners.' Page 29 of that document contains the state standards for sexual health, and for Kindergarten and First Grade students the listed benchmarks are 'Understand there are many ways to express gender' and 'Explain that there are many ways to express gender' respectively. The word 'transgender' isn't mentioned in the guidelines until the 'Glossary' portion: At the Grade Five point in the table, 'Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation' appears as part of the sexual education curriculum standards, but no wording suggests that 'teaching transgenderism' is part of those guidelines. A 2 June 2016 press release from anti-LGBT group Family Policy Institute of Washington cited the Daily Caller article in a piece that jumped to numerous imaginative conclusions about what young schoolchildren in Washington might be learning about gender under the purported new standards: Kindergarten used to be a place for children to learn how to add, subtract, and read. Next year, Washington schoolchildren as young as five years old will instead be learning about gender fluidity and the differences between gender and sexual identity. The newly-minted health and physical education standards, released by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), will be implemented in schools across the state for the 2017-2018 school year. ♦ Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender. Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression. ♦ Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity. These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender. ♦ Fourth graders will be expected to 'define sexual orientation,' which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they'll also be taught about HIV prevention. Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation. Much like a previous controversy pertaining to gender identity and curriculum in Fairfax County, Virginia, the claims about Washington State's OPSI, gender, and curriculum hinged on unsupported assertions that changes had been made to existing guidelines to more assertively include transgender topics in education for very young children.

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the U.S. and its people 'garbage.

Contradiction

In defending himself against criticism of his tweets that called on four non-white U.S. congresswomen to go back to their 'totally broken and crime infested' countries, President Donald Trump leveled another incendiary falsehood against one of those congresswomen. Of the four women presumably targeted, three - Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) - were born in the United States. One, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), is a naturalized citizen and the first Somali-American to serve in Congress. The controversy culminated with a crowd at a Trump rally in North Carolina on July 17, 2019, chanting 'send her back' about Omar. Amid further criticism that the chant was racist, Trump stated he was 'unhappy' with it and claimed he 'started speaking very quickly' to cut the crowd off. But that explanation didn't stick, because video of the incident showed Trump listening quietly to the crowd for roughly 10 seconds before continuing with the attack on Omar that prompted it. So one day after claiming to 'disavow' the chant, Trump on July 19 again changed course, this time renewing his attack on the women by taking one of Ocasio-Cortez's comments out of context and falsely stating she had referred to 'our country and our people' as 'garbage.' 'I'm unhappy that a congresswoman, in this case a different one, can call our country and our people garbage,' Trump said in response to a reporter's question about the chant and his commentary about it. But Ocasio-Cortez didn't refer to the country or its people as garbage. During a March 2019 interview at South by Southwest, she instead criticized the leadership of both political parties for, in her view, abandoning working-class Americans and adopting an apathetic stance toward ambitious social programs while expecting everyone to settle for '10 percent better than garbage.' The question that prompted the response was asked by host and then-senior politics editor for The Intercept Briahna Gray, who said: 'Why do you think it's taken so long to get candidates who are pushing issues like Medicare for all, a Green New Deal, $15 minimum wage, to the foreground?' Following is a transcript and video of the exchange: Ocasio-Cortez: I think it's because, you know - So I'll kind of go back with a story, because even though people, they try to characterize my district as far left and, 'Oh my God, every socialist in America lives in East Bronx and Queens or whatever.' But there are a lot of Trump voting pockets of my district, and I talked to these folks and I'll never forget - there are parts of my district that look like the middle of the country, believe it or not - and I'll never forget this one older woman who came to me and said, 'You know, I always voted Democrat because growing up, my dad told me that Democrats were the people that fight for the working man.' And we stopped. And the working man and woman and people is the majority of this country. So what I think we saw, was now both parties, frankly, abdicated their responsibility and it was just no one was fighting for working people who were struggling. And so as a result, it almost created this opportunity, and you can take all of this anger and direct it to a negative and destructive end that allows a small group of people to benefit a great amount, or you have to take a really bold stance to bring it the other way and direct it to the possibility of what we can accomplish together. And I think the thing that is really hard for people to sometimes see, is that we are on this path of a slow erosion, and a slow, slow, slow move away from what we've always been. We'll be 100 miles - you won't even realize that you've drifted 100 miles. So when someone is talking about our core, it's like, 'Oh this is radical.' But this isn't radical, this is what we've always been. It's just that now we've strayed so far away from what has really made us powerful and just and good and equitable and productive. And so, I think all of these things sound radical compared to where we are. But where we are is not a good thing. This idea of 10 percent better from garbage shouldn't be what we settle for. It feels like moderate is not a stance, it's just an attitude toward life of like, 'meh.' Gray: Well don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel about incrementalism. Ocasio-Cortez: But here's the thing that upsets me is that we've become so cynical that we view 'meh' or 'eh' - we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete. When we think about the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of vision, and the 'meh' is like worship now, for what? For what? In sum, while Ocasio-Cortez criticized political leadership in the U.S. for failing to take on aspirational initiatives and expecting the public to settle for '10 percent better from garbage,' she did not refer to the U.S. and its people as 'garbage.'

In sum, while Ocasio-Cortez criticized political leadership in the U.S. for failing to take on aspirational initiatives and expecting the public to settle for '10 percent better from garbage,' she did not refer to the U.S. and its people as 'garbage.'

Fisher Price sells a 'happy hour playset' including a bar, bar stools, and beer bottles.

Contradiction

On 6 December 2016, a Facebook user shared an image of a 'Fisher Price Happy Hour Playset': Although most social media users interpreted the image as an obvious joke, others expressed outrage such a thing was being marketed to toddlers or their parents: Predictably, a number of outraged Facebook users visited the wall of Fisher Price to express their distaste for the Happy Hour playset. Fisher Price representatives addressed each query with a brief response: Please know that this product is not endorsed, produced or approved by Fisher-Price. Neither a a standard word-based nor reverse image search revealed the origins of the 'Fisher Price Happy Hour' playset. However, the controversial image did not depict a genuine Fisher Price product.

On 6 December 2016, a Facebook user shared an image of a 'Fisher Price Happy Hour Playset': Although most social media users interpreted the image as an obvious joke, others expressed outrage such a thing was being marketed to toddlers or their parents: Predictably, a number of outraged Facebook users visited the wall of Fisher Price to express their distaste for the Happy Hour playset. Fisher Price representatives addressed each query with a brief response: Please know that this product is not endorsed, produced or approved by Fisher-Price. Neither a a standard word-based nor reverse image search revealed the origins of the 'Fisher Price Happy Hour' playset. However, the controversial image did not depict a genuine Fisher Price product.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris called American churches 'propaganda centers.

Contradiction

In October 2020, a piece of text started to circulate on social media claiming that vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris called American churches 'propaganda centers': This text, which was copied and pasted across a number of social media accounts, reads: Biden's running mate Kamala Harris this morning said that, 'American churches are PROPAGANDA CENTERS for intolerant homophobic, xenophobic vitriol' and she called american pastors, ' knuckle-dragging disseminators of intolerance and enemies of social justice' Think about that ... That was a verbatim quote from Biden's running mate, who, God forbid, would become President if Biden won the election and if he passed/became incapacitated. This woman isnt even bothering to hide her utter disdain & contempt for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Look at Harris' record as State of California Attorney General when she FREQUENTLY went after churches in California. You can be assured she will continue to be an enemy of the cross if she ever got into the Oval Office. Biden himself monday said that, 'those who hold to traditional views and intolerant christian beliefs are dregs of society.' What christian, in their right mind, would vote for ppl who hold these views against churches/pastors? These are not genuine quotes from Harris. The claims made in this text were made up out of whole cloth. The alleged quotes contained in this Facebook post are controversial, to say the least. And this text claims that they were uttered by a woman running for vice president, a position that is highly scrutinized in the media. If these quotes were real, we would undoubtedly be able to find a multitude of news article's about Harris' alleged remarks. Yet, our search for videos, articles, press releases and tweets yielded no results. The credibility of this Facebook post is also called into question since it misquotes Harris' running mate Joe Biden as saying 'those who hold to traditional views and intolerant Christian beliefs are dregs of society.' This is not what Biden said. We discussed this quote at length in a separate article. In short, Biden was talking about racists groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, who have voiced their support for President Donald Trump, and referred to those 'virulent people' as the 'dregs of society.'

In short, Biden was talking about racists groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, who have voiced their support for President Donald Trump, and referred to those 'virulent people' as the 'dregs of society.'

Data displayed on the World Bank's World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) website in September 2020 proved that dozens of nations imported or exported items labeled 'COVID-19 Test Kits' in 2018 - more than a year before the pandemic occurred and before COVID-19 even had a name.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. An image shared on social media in September 2020 purported to reveal that international trade data showed dozens of nations bought COVID-19 testing and diagnostic materials more than two years before the coronavirus pandemic was declared and SARS-CoV-2, the responsible virus, was first identified. The above image was shared to Facebook and Twitter in the first week of September 2020. The screenshots came as conspiracy theories surrounding the origin and severity of the coronavirus proved particularly contagious in 2020. A number of far-fetched COVID-19 misinformation campaigns were shared extensively across the internet, from claims that erroneously argued that SARS-CoV-2 was a man-made bioweapon created in a lab to social media users who falsely pushed the idea that the disease was spread by 5G towers. One user on Twitter posited, for example, that the reported data was 'more proof' that the COVID-19 pandemic was 'planned and orchestrated.' The tweet went on to argue that dozens of countries preemptively ordered COVID-19 tests 'back in 2018 when [the virus] didn't exist.' More proof. If this wasn't planned and orchestrated, how on earth did they know to order covid-19 tests back in 2018 when it didn't exist? Who manufactured them and how long before did they know? https://t.co/PjKziQDm2n - Kimberley 🤗😘❤️ (@kimberley82h) September 6, 2020 This claim is false, although it is based on a screen capture of real data published in the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), a software program provided by the World Bank that allows users access to an international trade database that tracks trade between countries. WITS is a joint initiative between the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and several other leading intergovernmental organizations that tracks the import and export of various goods - including medical supplies and equipment - using the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, referred to simply as HS codes. Before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, health-related products were tracked in the database under more technical terms as part of the sixth edition of the HS nomenclature first published in 2017 and employed by more than 200 countries in 2020. In April, the World Customs Organization (WCO) followed in the footsteps of the World Health Organization to create a list of HS codes that allowed countries to track the movement of 'critical products' related to COVID-19. Each of the numerical codes referenced in the screenshots was in existence in 2017 and still in use in 2020, according to WCO Communications Officer Laure Tempier. The June 2020 version of the code list included dozens of specific medical devices used to diagnose or treat COVID, such as ventilators and hand sanitizers, which existed and were tracked under WITS before the COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, items coded under 9027.80 are specific to a medical device called a colorimetric carbon dioxide detector that helps medical professionals determine if a patient is correctly connected to a ventilator. Under the revamped 2020 classification system, this item was considered a part of those categorized as 'COVID-19 Diagnostic Test instruments and apparatus.' 'The short answer is that these products have had other uses for many years but have become COVID-19 specific [in 2020],' wrote Tempier in an email to Snopes. 'These products are medical devices that have long had many other uses but have assumed particular importance because of COVID-19, and have been classified by the WCO as COVID-19 products to facilitate better tracking.' In short, the screenshot in question is authentic but was misinterpreted or misrepresented by social media users to further conspiracy theories about the origin of the disease. In response to the viral images, the World Bank issued a statement noting that the goal of the April and June updates was to 'put information about key COVID-related medical supplies in one easy-to-find place.' 'However, in light of misinterpretations that have occurred in recent days, the labeling in the WITS site has been updated to reflect the reality: COVID-19 tests did not exist before 2020,' wrote the WHO, adding that an update provided in early September 2020 correctly labeled COVID-19 test kits as medical tests and had made similar clarifying adjustments in other places. An archived version of the WITS website saved on Sept. 4 clearly included 'COVID-19' in the product description column and continued to do so for the following two days. The change to 'medical' was put into place on Sept. 7. At the time of writing, the main database retained all of the original descriptions and labels that existed before the 2020 outbreak. All that has changed is the way in which they are labeled to the public. Full definitions and descriptions of traded goods classified under the HS system can be found on the WITS website. A side-by-side comparison of the widely circulated screenshot (left) and one of the report as it appeared at the time of writing (right), which is archived here for reference, showed where the word 'medical' had replaced 'COVID-19' in the updated version. In its new form, the WITS website included the following statement: 'The data here track previously existing medical devices that are now classified by the World Customs Organization as critical to tackling COVID-19.' Tempier added that the WCO classification system is not necessarily 'critical to tackling the pandemic.' Rather, it is a 'key tool to support countries in identifying and ensuring that goods, which are essential in the fight against the virus, were cleared through borders as swiftly as possible.' On Feb. 11, 2020, the WHO officially named the severe respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 'CO' stands for corona, 'VI' for 'virus' and 'D' for 'disease.' The '19' in the name refers to the year that SARS-CoV-2 was first observed in humans, noted WHO. The disease was previously referred to as 2019-nCoV, which stood for 2019 novel coronavirus.

In short, the screenshot in question is authentic but was misinterpreted or misrepresented by social media users to further conspiracy theories about the origin of the disease. In response to the viral images, the World Bank issued a statement noting that the goal of the April and June updates was to 'put information about key COVID-related medical supplies in one easy-to-find place.' 'However, in light of misinterpretations that have occurred in recent days, the labeling in the WITS site has been updated to reflect the reality: COVID-19 tests did not exist before 2020,' wrote the WHO, adding that an update provided in early September 2020 correctly labeled COVID-19 test kits as medical tests and had made similar clarifying adjustments in other places. An archived version of the WITS website saved on Sept. 4 clearly included 'COVID-19' in the product description column and continued to do so for the following two days. The change to 'medical' was put into place on Sept. 7. At the time of writing, the main database retained all of the original descriptions and labels that existed before the 2020 outbreak. All that has changed is the way in which they are labeled to the public. Full definitions and descriptions of traded goods classified under the HS system can be found on the WITS website. A side-by-side comparison of the widely circulated screenshot (left) and one of the report as it appeared at the time of writing (right), which is archived here for reference, showed where the word 'medical' had replaced 'COVID-19' in the updated version. In its new form, the WITS website included the following statement: 'The data here track previously existing medical devices that are now classified by the World Customs Organization as critical to tackling COVID-19.' Tempier added that the WCO classification system is not necessarily 'critical to tackling the pandemic.' Rather, it is a 'key tool to support countries in identifying and ensuring that goods, which are essential in the fight against the virus, were cleared through borders as swiftly as possible.' On Feb. 11, 2020, the WHO officially named the severe respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 'CO' stands for corona, 'VI' for 'virus' and 'D' for 'disease.' The '19' in the name refers to the year that SARS-CoV-2 was first observed in humans, noted WHO. The disease was previously referred to as 2019-nCoV, which stood for 2019 novel coronavirus.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

HUD is attempting to pass a law banning tiny houses and RV living.

Contradiction

In early April 2016 a number of blogs and recreational vehicle enthusiast sites began reporting that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was moving to make popular 'tiny houses' and recreational vehicle (RV) living illegal under a sweeping new law. Due to the popularity of tiny homes, the rumor caused a bit of consternation on social media sites among a number of the dwellings' fans. One of the most shared versions of this rumor was published by a web site called Activist Post on 31 March 2016: The tiny house movement has taken America by storm, in part because our economy is in the toilet. People are striving to reduce their expenses by embracing minimalism. They're breaking free from the corporate grind because, as I've always advised, they are learning to live with less and radically reducing their expenses. But, these days in America, you are sharply admonished when you try to live your life outside of the strictures of the 9-5 world. Is it any surprise that the government is now taking steps to limit our ability to drastically reduce our expenses? They always seem to make illegal anything we try to do to be more independent and moving into a tiny house appears to be the next on their list. After quoting the purported 'HUD law' in question, the post concluded by stating that 'if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April [2016].' A similar blog entry posted by Don't Comply held that the purported tiny house ban was one of the latest attempts by the government to interrupt citizens' abilities to become more self-sufficient or take up residence 'off-grid': For years the government has been cracking down on citizens who are polishing their skills in minimizing the involvement in the matrix and exiting the rat race. Learning to survive comfortably with less by unplugging from the burdensome requirements that larger permanently fixed residences demand is catching the eye of The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Government will do what they do best and limit and make illegal anything we do to be more independent and moving into smaller homes is their next target. View the proposed law here. If this Draconian law is passed, the evil curse of government will be extended to the lives of the free roaming human beings. Being unattached to the grid is a no-no in the eyes of these indoctrinated so-called officials. The Freedom to live where and how one chooses is under assault, this law will dismantle the force field of liberty when it pertains to the utilization of the earth as a home. Often, the circulating blog posts used malleable language such as 'we believe' in warning readers that tiny houses were about to be regulated out of existence: This is a quick announcement because we need your help to stop tiny houses from becoming illegal per the fed's new HUD proposal regarding recreational vehicles. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 3282 docket FR-5877-P-01 which covers Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (as well as Revision of Exemption for Recreational Vehicles). We believe this includes tiny houses on wheels. Although many panicked pieces quoted the HUD policy in question, few explained what it was or how it might affect owners or future builders of tiny houses. These items referenced a pending 'law' or claimed tiny houses would soon be 'outlawed,' leading many readers to infer that whatever HUD was up to, it would result in an actual law rendering both existing and in-development tiny homes illegal (and leaving their residents homeless). However, links to the HUD web site led to remarkably benign language regarding the proposed rule: This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD's manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. The HUD summary went on to explain what changes to existing rules were being proposed by that agency, describing what appeared to be a need created by the increasing number of dwellings that fall outside the existing recreational vehicle (RV), manufactured home, and standard house classifications: HUD's proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD's regulations. Specifically, HUD's proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD's rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling. The wording of that passage suggested the proposal targeted structures that were atypical for permanent dwellings (such as tiny houses) to ensure they were built to general housing standards governing dwellings used for year-round living. Units bearing modifications considered atypical for RVs and other recreational use units would be specifically marked as not suitable for primary residence and subject to HUD's RV standards (or reclassified). We contacted a local Chief Building inspector to parse the proposed regulation and determine whether the rule as stated would result in any sort of ban. He indicated that the proposal appeared to pertain solely to the classification of structures (even tiny ones) marketed as year-round residences, to ensure that those dwellings complied with building codes and the structures didn't present a safety hazard to occupants. He added that a different set of rules applies to RVs, but that those temporary and mobile dwellings are similarly regulated for safety. The web site Tiny House Build espoused an unperturbed viewpoint in an article about the pending rule change, holding that the intent of the tiny house movement included acceptance of such dwellings as code-compliant permanent residences: The new proposal would dictate that a tiny house, if built to ANSI or NFPA standards, is an RV and thus not suitable for permanent occupancy. The reality is that it is already illegal to live permanently in an RV in most places anyway. That is something that local zoning ordinances specifically dictate. So the problem here is the idea of certifying your tiny house as an RV rather than seeking permanent residential status through the building codes division. Consider that in almost every community in the United States where zoning laws are enforced, RVs are considered temporary shelter and are only suitable for up to thirty consecutive days of occupancy. That doesn't fit the model of tiny houses as permanent residences at all. For HUD to include all RVs that are 'not self-propelled,' thus including THOWs [tiny houses on wheels] is an acceptable practice on their part. In fact, I am not opposed in any way to HUD overseeing the construction of RVs if that is important to their industry. This is because my intention is, and always has been, to secure a path to legalization for tiny houses through the International Residential Code (IRC). The writer of the article (presumably a tiny house enthusiast) surmised that '[t]he reality is ... we are discussing the wrong topic: recreational vehicles (RVs),' adding that 'tiny housers should not be concerned because our goal is to live in our tiny houses permanently, not to certify them as RVs [which is] what HUD's recent proposal aims to clarify.' He also posited that it was counterproductive to 'refer to [tiny] homes as 'tiny house RVs' because that implies temporary housing, not a permanent residence,' opining that tiny homeowners would be better off 'work[ing] within an existing residential code ... to gain code approvals and legal, PERMANENT residential status.' Similarly unbothered by the proposal was the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), which issued a joint statement alongside other industry groups on 11 February 2016. Like the tiny house expert, the RV trade groups welcomed the proposal as both beneficial to and long-desired by the RV industry. Stating that 'this proposed rule provides a critical solution to the regulatory uncertainty that has plagued RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds for decades,' RVIA maintained that '[w]ithout it, the entire RV lifestyle could be regulated out of existence': To respond to the inapplicability of the 1982 definition to modern RVs, RV manufacturers, dealers and campgrounds put their heads together with the manufactured housing industry to propose new language to clarify that modern RVs are not manufactured homes. All parties agreed that RVs should be built in accordance with NFPA and ANSI RV standards, not HUD manufactured home standards. All parties agreed that the key distinction continues to be that manufactured homes are designed and built for permanent residency while RVs are designed and built to be used by families as a recreational, camping, or seasonal accommodation ... In the newly proposed rule, HUD accepted this consensus proposal with the additional requirement that park model RVs contain a consumer-facing notice that the manufacturer certifies that the structure is a recreational vehicle designed only for recreational use. The RVIA PMRV seal applied to every PMRV already contains this notice, so it is not an additional burden to industry. So this proposed rule gives RV manufacturers the critical regulatory clarity and certainty they have long sought: so long as they build to the nationally-recognized RV standards, the modern RVs they are building do not and will not fall under HUD's jurisdiction. The proposed rule gives RV dealers additional critical regulatory clarity they have long sought: the proper paperwork, forms, and disclosures the RV dealer needs to provide during a sales transaction are based on the design intent of the recreational vehicle. Yet another skeptical perspective came from former lawyer and accountant Howard Payne of RVDreams. Payne stated that portions of the law causing concern had existed for more than 30 years: Folks have been freaking out about the part of the definition that says ' .... designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence for permanent occupancy'. Well, that's been part of the definition since 1982, and similar language is included in just about every RV owners manual. So that part of the definition isn't new, and the new language is actually broader and officially exempts more RVs from the HUD Code. The '400 square feet' language in the prior definition was what was throwing some fifth wheels into question. While there are a lot of full-time RVers (nobody really knows the numbers), full-timers are still a very, very small niche in the RV world. While we are an independent, vocal bunch that doesn't want government interference, this proposed rule certainly isn't targeting full-timers ... RV-Dreams only exists because of full-time RVers and those that are considering full-time RVing. Our livelihood is based on there being a desire of people to become full-time RVers and our desire to help them reach that goal. There may be laws, rules, or regulations in the future that severely curtail the ability of people to live in their RVs, but this minor rule, buried within manufactured housing regulations, isn't one of them. Hopefully, this entry provides some facts and perspective. In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

In short, while a number of confused commenters flooded HUD's proposal page based on inaccurate rumors, the proposed rules were seen as a net positive by tiny home experts, RV enthusiasts, RV trade groups, and anyone deeply involved with full-time RVing or tiny house living. A handful of blogs broadly misinterpreted the proposed rule changes as HUD 'outlawing' tiny homes, despite the fact HUD doesn't possess the authority to pass such laws. The proposed rule rumored to be a 'tiny house ban' was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.

The COVID-19 pandemic was planned by the Rockefeller Foundation in 'Operation Lockstep.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In July 2020, several social media users started posting about 'Operation Lockstep,' a document allegedly released by The Rockefeller Foundation that showed how global elites had planned to manufacture the COVID-19 pandemic for the last 10 years in order to implement a police state: Like most conspiracy theories, 'Operation Lockstep' is based on a small grain of truth: In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation funded a scenario-planning exercise that envisioned how hypothetical future events could impact the development of technology. This document, however, does not provide any sort of 'operation manual' for how to manufacture a global pandemic. Rather, it envisions how the world would be impacted in four different scenarios (including a global pandemic). When we look at this rumor a little closer, it becomes clear that what is being called 'Operation Lockstep' has very few similarities to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that much of the fear about this document was manufactured by purveyors of misinformation. What Is 'Operation Lockstep: From the Rockefeller Playbook'? It Doesn't Exist. For starters, the above-displayed image entitled 'Operation Lockstep: From the Rockefeller Playbook' is presented as if it shows a screenshot from a document published by The Rockefeller Foundation. However, there is no document called 'Operation Lockstep,' and this image did not come from a 'Rockefeller Playbook.' Those spreading this rumor have linked 'Operation Lockstep' to a report entitled 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development' that was published by The Rockefeller Foundation in 2010. The 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology' document envisions four scenario narratives, only one of which, dubbed 'Lock Step,' deals with a global pandemic. The text in the above-displayed image, '1st Phase: Common cold/flu. Mild symptoms at most. Media endorsement of mass paranoia and fear. Flawed testing system utilized, which picks up any genetic material in the body and triggers a positive result. Inflation of Covid case numbers, through changing of death certificates, double-counting, and classifying all deaths including other disease and natural causes as COVID19. Lockdown will condition us to life under Draconian laws, prevent protests and identify public resistance,' etc., does not appear anywhere in this document. In fact, nowhere in the 'Lock Step' section of 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology' is the word 'COVID' even mentioned. Does the Quote 'Under the Guise of a Pandemic, We Will Create a Prison State' Come from the Rockefeller Foundation? No. Rumors about 'Operation Lockstep' are often shared on social media along with the quote: 'Under the guise of a pandemic, we will create a prison state.' Again, this quote does not appear anywhere in the actual document from the Rockefeller Foundation. This quote appears to come from the Wordpress blog envirowatchrangitikei's faulty interpretation of the 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology' document. While the Rockefeller Foundation did envision a world where governments implemented stricter rules to combat the pandemic (including the mandatory requirement to wear face masks), they did not warn about a 'prison state.' More importantly, however, the genuine report from The Rockefeller Foundation did not envision a future in which world leaders manufactured a pandemic to implement a prison state. A section of this document envisions how global leaders would react to a real pandemic, not how they would create a fake one. What Are the Similarities Between 'Operation Lockstep' and COVID-19? Few and Far Between. While the 'Lock Step' section of the actual document does deal with a global pandemic, the similarities between The Rockefeller Foundation's envisioned scenario and the current COVID-19 crisis are few and far between. For instance, the hypothetical pandemic envisioned by foundation started in 2012, originated in wild geese, and killed 8 million people in the first 7 months. Comparatively speaking, the COVID-19 pandemic began at the end of 2019, is widely believed to have originated with bats, and, according to John Hopkins University (as of this writing in July 2020) has killed just over 600,000 people within an approximate 7 month time-span. The 'Lock Step' scenario also envisioned that the majority of deaths during this hypothetical global pandemic would take places like Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America. As of this writing, the most deaths from COVID-19 - about 140,000 - have taken place in the United States. A video report from news outlet WUSA9 on the differences and similarities between this rumor and the actual document from The Rockefeller Foundation can be viewed here. Why Did the Rockefeller Foundation Produce 'The Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development' Report? To Better Prepare for the Future. This rumor is based on a 2010 report published by The Rockefeller Foundation entitled 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.' This document does not detail an 'operation' in a 'playbook' detailing how global elites can manufacture a pandemic and implement a prison state. Rather, this document explores the possible outcomes of four different scenarios. Judith Rodin, the President of the Rockefeller Foundation, explained the purpose of this document in an introductory letter: One important - and novel - component of our strategy toolkit is scenario planning, a process of creating narratives about the future based on factors likely to affect a particular set of challengers and opportunities. We believe that scenario planning has great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions, simulate and rehearse important decisions that could have profound implications, and highlight previously undiscovered areas of connection and intersection. Most important, by providing a methodological structure that helps us focus on what we don't know - instead of what we already know - scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively. The result of our first scenario planning exercise demonstrate a provocative and engaging exploration of the role of technology and the future of globalization, as you will see in the following pages. This report is crucial reading for anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve. Our Conclusion In 2010, The Rockefeller Foundation produced a report entitled 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development' that envisioned how the world would be impacted in four different scenario narratives - one of which dealt with a global pandemic. This document gives a hypothetical look at future events in order to envision possible problems that might arise. While this document does explore how the global population could react during a pandemic, it is in no way an 'operation manual' for how to manufacture a virus in order to implement a police state.

Conclusion In 2010, The Rockefeller Foundation produced a report entitled 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development' that envisioned how the world would be impacted in four different scenario narratives - one of which dealt with a global pandemic. This document gives a hypothetical look at future events in order to envision possible problems that might arise. While this document does explore how the global population could react during a pandemic, it is in no way an 'operation manual' for how to manufacture a virus in order to implement a police state.

A portion of money from every Bang Energy purchase goes toward funding U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election efforts.

Contradiction

On July 31, 2019, Axios published a report about the fundraising efforts of pro-Donald Trump super PAC America First Action and its affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, America First Policies. The news outlet found that these organizations had jointly raised more than $17 million during the first six months of 2019, thanks in part to donations from PAC Chairwoman Linda McMahon ($1 million), Chicago Cubs Co-Owner Marlene Ricketts ($500,000), and the company Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. ($250,000). The donation from Vital Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufacturers Bang Energy, caught the attention of the website Popular Information. On Aug. 1, that website elaborated on Axios' findings in an article entitled: 'Every can of (Bang Energy) drink helps Trump get re-elected': Every can of this energy drink helps Trump get re-elected If you've ever spent any time on Instagram, you've probably run into one of the ubiquitous sponsored posts promoting Bang energy drink. In the ads, models in garish Bang-branded gear promote the benefits of drinking Bang or just try to look appealing while posing with a Bang beverage. These ads are working. Bang's sales grew over 780% in 2018. One thing these ads don't tell you: Every time you buy a can, you help Trump get re-elected. The notion that every purchase of a BANG Energy drink helps fund President Trump's 2020 re-election campaign reached a wider audience a few days later when the following message was posted to Twitter: PSA: (just found this out) everyime you buy a BANG, a portion of your $$ is going towards the re-election fund campaign of Donald Trump. I know these taste 🔥 af, but I can't be supporting a company that supports children in cages, no change on guns laws, etc. https://t.co/L1ulgP6val - 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃$🌴 (@Yungmdot) August 4, 2019 Both the Popular Information article and the aforementioned tweet exaggerated Bang's connection to the Trump campaign. Vital Pharmaceuticals did donate $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. But that is not the same as Bang Energy donating a portion of every product sold to Trump's re-election effort. Bang has no advertising campaign promising to donate a portion of sales to fund Trump's re-election. Furthermore, the Pharmaceuticals donation appears to have been for one time only. We found no record of that company donating to any pro-Trump super PACs during the 2016 presidential election. Also, no evidence exists that this donation was directly tied to Bang Energy sales, now or in the future. That said, Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy founder and CEO Jack Owoc has been a vocal supporter of the president: @realDonaldTrump Your brilliance has fueled the most epic turn of events in the history of politics. God bless the inevitable - Trump wins! - Jack Owoc (@BangEnergyCEO) March 14, 2016 He is also friends (or at least friendly) with President Trump's son Don Jr. and his girlfriend and television personality Kimberly Guilfoyle. Trump Jr. tagged Owoc in a March 2019 Facebook post about a great night of fishing: Owoc also celebrated Guilfoyle's birthday with Trump Jr. at Mar-a-Lago: View this post on Instagram Happy Birthday @kimberlyguilfoyle!! 🎉❤️ You are beautiful, courageous, and selfless! I am so proud to be your friend! 🙏🏼🌹It was such an incredible honor to be invited to such an exclusive and beautiful event at @themaralagoclub! ✨ This was literally the best day of my life, being in the presence of our fearless leader, President Donald Trump @realdonaldtrump, First Lady Melania Trump @flotus, Ivanka Trump @ivankatrump, Donald Trump Junior @donaldjtrumpjr and our incredible friends @kimberlyguilfoyle @realdrgina @johnwloudon @kayajones @globalstallion! 🇺🇸❤️ Love you guys and God Bless America! . . #maralago #happybirthday #maga #americafirst #america #westpalmbeach #leadership #kimberlyguilfoyle A post shared by BANG ENERGY | Meg Liz Owoc (@megliz.owoc) on Mar 10, 2019 at 6:24pm PDT In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

A portion of money from every Bang Energy purchase goes toward funding U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election efforts.

Contradiction

On July 31, 2019, Axios published a report about the fundraising efforts of pro-Donald Trump super PAC America First Action and its affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, America First Policies. The news outlet found that these organizations had jointly raised more than $17 million during the first six months of 2019, thanks in part to donations from PAC Chairwoman Linda McMahon ($1 million), Chicago Cubs Co-Owner Marlene Ricketts ($500,000), and the company Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. ($250,000). The donation from Vital Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufacturers Bang Energy, caught the attention of the website Popular Information. On Aug. 1, that website elaborated on Axios' findings in an article entitled: 'Every can of (Bang Energy) drink helps Trump get re-elected': Every can of this energy drink helps Trump get re-elected If you've ever spent any time on Instagram, you've probably run into one of the ubiquitous sponsored posts promoting Bang energy drink. In the ads, models in garish Bang-branded gear promote the benefits of drinking Bang or just try to look appealing while posing with a Bang beverage. These ads are working. Bang's sales grew over 780% in 2018. One thing these ads don't tell you: Every time you buy a can, you help Trump get re-elected. The notion that every purchase of a BANG Energy drink helps fund President Trump's 2020 re-election campaign reached a wider audience a few days later when the following message was posted to Twitter: PSA: (just found this out) everyime you buy a BANG, a portion of your $$ is going towards the re-election fund campaign of Donald Trump. I know these taste 🔥 af, but I can't be supporting a company that supports children in cages, no change on guns laws, etc. https://t.co/L1ulgP6val - 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃$🌴 (@Yungmdot) August 4, 2019 Both the Popular Information article and the aforementioned tweet exaggerated Bang's connection to the Trump campaign. Vital Pharmaceuticals did donate $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. But that is not the same as Bang Energy donating a portion of every product sold to Trump's re-election effort. Bang has no advertising campaign promising to donate a portion of sales to fund Trump's re-election. Furthermore, the Pharmaceuticals donation appears to have been for one time only. We found no record of that company donating to any pro-Trump super PACs during the 2016 presidential election. Also, no evidence exists that this donation was directly tied to Bang Energy sales, now or in the future. That said, Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy founder and CEO Jack Owoc has been a vocal supporter of the president: @realDonaldTrump Your brilliance has fueled the most epic turn of events in the history of politics. God bless the inevitable - Trump wins! - Jack Owoc (@BangEnergyCEO) March 14, 2016 He is also friends (or at least friendly) with President Trump's son Don Jr. and his girlfriend and television personality Kimberly Guilfoyle. Trump Jr. tagged Owoc in a March 2019 Facebook post about a great night of fishing: Owoc also celebrated Guilfoyle's birthday with Trump Jr. at Mar-a-Lago: View this post on Instagram Happy Birthday @kimberlyguilfoyle!! 🎉❤️ You are beautiful, courageous, and selfless! I am so proud to be your friend! 🙏🏼🌹It was such an incredible honor to be invited to such an exclusive and beautiful event at @themaralagoclub! ✨ This was literally the best day of my life, being in the presence of our fearless leader, President Donald Trump @realdonaldtrump, First Lady Melania Trump @flotus, Ivanka Trump @ivankatrump, Donald Trump Junior @donaldjtrumpjr and our incredible friends @kimberlyguilfoyle @realdrgina @johnwloudon @kayajones @globalstallion! 🇺🇸❤️ Love you guys and God Bless America! . . #maralago #happybirthday #maga #americafirst #america #westpalmbeach #leadership #kimberlyguilfoyle A post shared by BANG ENERGY | Meg Liz Owoc (@megliz.owoc) on Mar 10, 2019 at 6:24pm PDT In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

A portion of money from every Bang Energy purchase goes toward funding U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election efforts.

Contradiction

On July 31, 2019, Axios published a report about the fundraising efforts of pro-Donald Trump super PAC America First Action and its affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, America First Policies. The news outlet found that these organizations had jointly raised more than $17 million during the first six months of 2019, thanks in part to donations from PAC Chairwoman Linda McMahon ($1 million), Chicago Cubs Co-Owner Marlene Ricketts ($500,000), and the company Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. ($250,000). The donation from Vital Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufacturers Bang Energy, caught the attention of the website Popular Information. On Aug. 1, that website elaborated on Axios' findings in an article entitled: 'Every can of (Bang Energy) drink helps Trump get re-elected': Every can of this energy drink helps Trump get re-elected If you've ever spent any time on Instagram, you've probably run into one of the ubiquitous sponsored posts promoting Bang energy drink. In the ads, models in garish Bang-branded gear promote the benefits of drinking Bang or just try to look appealing while posing with a Bang beverage. These ads are working. Bang's sales grew over 780% in 2018. One thing these ads don't tell you: Every time you buy a can, you help Trump get re-elected. The notion that every purchase of a BANG Energy drink helps fund President Trump's 2020 re-election campaign reached a wider audience a few days later when the following message was posted to Twitter: PSA: (just found this out) everyime you buy a BANG, a portion of your $$ is going towards the re-election fund campaign of Donald Trump. I know these taste 🔥 af, but I can't be supporting a company that supports children in cages, no change on guns laws, etc. https://t.co/L1ulgP6val - 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃$🌴 (@Yungmdot) August 4, 2019 Both the Popular Information article and the aforementioned tweet exaggerated Bang's connection to the Trump campaign. Vital Pharmaceuticals did donate $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. But that is not the same as Bang Energy donating a portion of every product sold to Trump's re-election effort. Bang has no advertising campaign promising to donate a portion of sales to fund Trump's re-election. Furthermore, the Pharmaceuticals donation appears to have been for one time only. We found no record of that company donating to any pro-Trump super PACs during the 2016 presidential election. Also, no evidence exists that this donation was directly tied to Bang Energy sales, now or in the future. That said, Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy founder and CEO Jack Owoc has been a vocal supporter of the president: @realDonaldTrump Your brilliance has fueled the most epic turn of events in the history of politics. God bless the inevitable - Trump wins! - Jack Owoc (@BangEnergyCEO) March 14, 2016 He is also friends (or at least friendly) with President Trump's son Don Jr. and his girlfriend and television personality Kimberly Guilfoyle. Trump Jr. tagged Owoc in a March 2019 Facebook post about a great night of fishing: Owoc also celebrated Guilfoyle's birthday with Trump Jr. at Mar-a-Lago: View this post on Instagram Happy Birthday @kimberlyguilfoyle!! 🎉❤️ You are beautiful, courageous, and selfless! I am so proud to be your friend! 🙏🏼🌹It was such an incredible honor to be invited to such an exclusive and beautiful event at @themaralagoclub! ✨ This was literally the best day of my life, being in the presence of our fearless leader, President Donald Trump @realdonaldtrump, First Lady Melania Trump @flotus, Ivanka Trump @ivankatrump, Donald Trump Junior @donaldjtrumpjr and our incredible friends @kimberlyguilfoyle @realdrgina @johnwloudon @kayajones @globalstallion! 🇺🇸❤️ Love you guys and God Bless America! . . #maralago #happybirthday #maga #americafirst #america #westpalmbeach #leadership #kimberlyguilfoyle A post shared by BANG ENERGY | Meg Liz Owoc (@megliz.owoc) on Mar 10, 2019 at 6:24pm PDT In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

A portion of money from every Bang Energy purchase goes toward funding U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election efforts.

Contradiction

On July 31, 2019, Axios published a report about the fundraising efforts of pro-Donald Trump super PAC America First Action and its affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, America First Policies. The news outlet found that these organizations had jointly raised more than $17 million during the first six months of 2019, thanks in part to donations from PAC Chairwoman Linda McMahon ($1 million), Chicago Cubs Co-Owner Marlene Ricketts ($500,000), and the company Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. ($250,000). The donation from Vital Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufacturers Bang Energy, caught the attention of the website Popular Information. On Aug. 1, that website elaborated on Axios' findings in an article entitled: 'Every can of (Bang Energy) drink helps Trump get re-elected': Every can of this energy drink helps Trump get re-elected If you've ever spent any time on Instagram, you've probably run into one of the ubiquitous sponsored posts promoting Bang energy drink. In the ads, models in garish Bang-branded gear promote the benefits of drinking Bang or just try to look appealing while posing with a Bang beverage. These ads are working. Bang's sales grew over 780% in 2018. One thing these ads don't tell you: Every time you buy a can, you help Trump get re-elected. The notion that every purchase of a BANG Energy drink helps fund President Trump's 2020 re-election campaign reached a wider audience a few days later when the following message was posted to Twitter: PSA: (just found this out) everyime you buy a BANG, a portion of your $$ is going towards the re-election fund campaign of Donald Trump. I know these taste 🔥 af, but I can't be supporting a company that supports children in cages, no change on guns laws, etc. https://t.co/L1ulgP6val - 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃$🌴 (@Yungmdot) August 4, 2019 Both the Popular Information article and the aforementioned tweet exaggerated Bang's connection to the Trump campaign. Vital Pharmaceuticals did donate $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. But that is not the same as Bang Energy donating a portion of every product sold to Trump's re-election effort. Bang has no advertising campaign promising to donate a portion of sales to fund Trump's re-election. Furthermore, the Pharmaceuticals donation appears to have been for one time only. We found no record of that company donating to any pro-Trump super PACs during the 2016 presidential election. Also, no evidence exists that this donation was directly tied to Bang Energy sales, now or in the future. That said, Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy founder and CEO Jack Owoc has been a vocal supporter of the president: @realDonaldTrump Your brilliance has fueled the most epic turn of events in the history of politics. God bless the inevitable - Trump wins! - Jack Owoc (@BangEnergyCEO) March 14, 2016 He is also friends (or at least friendly) with President Trump's son Don Jr. and his girlfriend and television personality Kimberly Guilfoyle. Trump Jr. tagged Owoc in a March 2019 Facebook post about a great night of fishing: Owoc also celebrated Guilfoyle's birthday with Trump Jr. at Mar-a-Lago: View this post on Instagram Happy Birthday @kimberlyguilfoyle!! 🎉❤️ You are beautiful, courageous, and selfless! I am so proud to be your friend! 🙏🏼🌹It was such an incredible honor to be invited to such an exclusive and beautiful event at @themaralagoclub! ✨ This was literally the best day of my life, being in the presence of our fearless leader, President Donald Trump @realdonaldtrump, First Lady Melania Trump @flotus, Ivanka Trump @ivankatrump, Donald Trump Junior @donaldjtrumpjr and our incredible friends @kimberlyguilfoyle @realdrgina @johnwloudon @kayajones @globalstallion! 🇺🇸❤️ Love you guys and God Bless America! . . #maralago #happybirthday #maga #americafirst #america #westpalmbeach #leadership #kimberlyguilfoyle A post shared by BANG ENERGY | Meg Liz Owoc (@megliz.owoc) on Mar 10, 2019 at 6:24pm PDT In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

In sum, Owoc, the CEO of Vital Pharmaceuticals and Bang Energy, is a supporter of President Trump. Vital Pharmaceuticals donated $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC in March 2019. However, no evidence exists that a portion of every Bang Energy drink sale supports Trump's reelection efforts.

The website Learnitwise revealed 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meat products.

Contradiction

Since at least February 2021, online advertisements promised to reveal 'the truth' about Kirkland meat products at Costco Wholesale. The ads were displayed by the website Learnitwise on the Outbrain advertising network: Two ads we found read: '[Pic] The Truth About Costco's Kirkland Meat.' Another said: 'Why You Should Never Buy Meat From Costco.' Readers who clicked either ad were led to a lengthy article on Learnitwise.com. The headline of the story was a bit different than what the ads promised. It read: 'Over 30 of the Greatest and Worst Deals You'll Find at Costco.' Being a member of the elite Costco club has many perks. All members will vouch for just how worth it the benefits are, and their customers are more than satisfied with their stock. However, customers who shop at Costco generally think that they are being offered the best deals and steals - this is not always the case. The list below has been divided to show you exactly what the best method of money-saving is at Costco. The article advised readers to either buy or don't buy specific Kirkland products sold at Costco. For example, the story advised Costco shoppers to buy Kirkland Maple Syrup, but to avoid purchasing books. Instead of only covering 30 items as the headline mentioned, the article spanned 99 pages. However, the ad was a classic case of clickbait. No 'truth' about Costco's Kirkland meat was ever revealed. Meat was mentioned near the end of the story. It included advice from the author to buy Costco's Kirkland meat products: Buy: Meat and Poultry At Costco, the club cost is better than the usually offered price by a local grocery. The grade is also excellent for beef! You would just buy a bunch of meat with one go and instead split everything before placing it in portion sizes in the freezer. The same story also advised readers to purchase the store's rotisserie chickens, bacon, and bacon crumbles. In sum, an online ad promised to reveal 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meats. The resulting story never mentioned anything of the sort. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, an online ad promised to reveal 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meats. The resulting story never mentioned anything of the sort. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

The website Learnitwise revealed 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meat products.

Contradiction

Since at least February 2021, online advertisements promised to reveal 'the truth' about Kirkland meat products at Costco Wholesale. The ads were displayed by the website Learnitwise on the Outbrain advertising network: Two ads we found read: '[Pic] The Truth About Costco's Kirkland Meat.' Another said: 'Why You Should Never Buy Meat From Costco.' Readers who clicked either ad were led to a lengthy article on Learnitwise.com. The headline of the story was a bit different than what the ads promised. It read: 'Over 30 of the Greatest and Worst Deals You'll Find at Costco.' Being a member of the elite Costco club has many perks. All members will vouch for just how worth it the benefits are, and their customers are more than satisfied with their stock. However, customers who shop at Costco generally think that they are being offered the best deals and steals - this is not always the case. The list below has been divided to show you exactly what the best method of money-saving is at Costco. The article advised readers to either buy or don't buy specific Kirkland products sold at Costco. For example, the story advised Costco shoppers to buy Kirkland Maple Syrup, but to avoid purchasing books. Instead of only covering 30 items as the headline mentioned, the article spanned 99 pages. However, the ad was a classic case of clickbait. No 'truth' about Costco's Kirkland meat was ever revealed. Meat was mentioned near the end of the story. It included advice from the author to buy Costco's Kirkland meat products: Buy: Meat and Poultry At Costco, the club cost is better than the usually offered price by a local grocery. The grade is also excellent for beef! You would just buy a bunch of meat with one go and instead split everything before placing it in portion sizes in the freezer. The same story also advised readers to purchase the store's rotisserie chickens, bacon, and bacon crumbles. In sum, an online ad promised to reveal 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meats. The resulting story never mentioned anything of the sort. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, an online ad promised to reveal 'the truth' about Costco's Kirkland meats. The resulting story never mentioned anything of the sort. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Costco closed stores across the U.S. in February 2021.

Contradiction

On Feb. 10, 2021, an online advertisement appeared to announce big news about Costco Wholesale. The ad was displayed on various websites via the Outbrain advertising network. It featured a picture of a Costco store and read: '[Pics] Say Goodbye: Stores Closing In 2020 Across The Nation.' The outdated ad mentioned the year 2020. This likely meant that it had been displayed prior to the new year and had not yet been disabled. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Housecoast website. It spanned more than 50 pages and appeared to have been originally published on Feb. 10, 2020. Companies such as Lowe's, Kohl's, JCPenney, and Macy's made the list. While several of the stores in the article had experienced financial troubles, many of them had not yet closed. Costco never appeared in the story. The clickbait ad led readers to believe that Costco would be closing its stores. This was false. The story itself was poorly written and contained a number of grammatical errors. These Power Stores Will Be Closing In 2020 When e-commerce started expanding in the last few years, 'brick and mortar' stores started to face the brunt of the economic crisis. In the last couple of years leading up to 2020, a lot of major stores have been closing their physical doors to businesses to include international outlets. It is a real blow to the business of commerce as the closing rate has been growing rapidly and projected for 2020; it may get worst. We have compiled a few stores who have noted they will be closing their doors in 2020 - for some stores, they will be closing all their outlets. On Dec. 10, 2020, Costco Wholesale released its fiscal year 2020 financial results. The numbers were strong. There was no indication that Costco would be closing stores: Net sales for fiscal 2020 totaled $163 billion, an increase of 9%, with a comparable sales increase of 8%. Net income was $4 billion, or $9.02 per diluted share, an increase of 9%. In addition, the Company surpassed 100 million members worldwide, contributing to membership revenue of $3.54 billion. Costco.com played a vital role in meeting members' needs, especially those choosing or required to stay at home. Our ecommerce business saw a 50% increase in sales. Increases were particularly evident in same day and 2-day grocery deliveries, prescription medications, electronics, and office supplies. Additional strong sales were seen in apparel, appliances, health and beauty products, and home furnishings. Our depots responded to unprecedented volume by shifting certain operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As circumstances allowed, expansion in fiscal 2020 continued, with the opening of 13 new warehouses. In fiscal 2021, we expect to open 20 new buildings. In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Costco closed stores across the U.S. in February 2021.

Contradiction

On Feb. 10, 2021, an online advertisement appeared to announce big news about Costco Wholesale. The ad was displayed on various websites via the Outbrain advertising network. It featured a picture of a Costco store and read: '[Pics] Say Goodbye: Stores Closing In 2020 Across The Nation.' The outdated ad mentioned the year 2020. This likely meant that it had been displayed prior to the new year and had not yet been disabled. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Housecoast website. It spanned more than 50 pages and appeared to have been originally published on Feb. 10, 2020. Companies such as Lowe's, Kohl's, JCPenney, and Macy's made the list. While several of the stores in the article had experienced financial troubles, many of them had not yet closed. Costco never appeared in the story. The clickbait ad led readers to believe that Costco would be closing its stores. This was false. The story itself was poorly written and contained a number of grammatical errors. These Power Stores Will Be Closing In 2020 When e-commerce started expanding in the last few years, 'brick and mortar' stores started to face the brunt of the economic crisis. In the last couple of years leading up to 2020, a lot of major stores have been closing their physical doors to businesses to include international outlets. It is a real blow to the business of commerce as the closing rate has been growing rapidly and projected for 2020; it may get worst. We have compiled a few stores who have noted they will be closing their doors in 2020 - for some stores, they will be closing all their outlets. On Dec. 10, 2020, Costco Wholesale released its fiscal year 2020 financial results. The numbers were strong. There was no indication that Costco would be closing stores: Net sales for fiscal 2020 totaled $163 billion, an increase of 9%, with a comparable sales increase of 8%. Net income was $4 billion, or $9.02 per diluted share, an increase of 9%. In addition, the Company surpassed 100 million members worldwide, contributing to membership revenue of $3.54 billion. Costco.com played a vital role in meeting members' needs, especially those choosing or required to stay at home. Our ecommerce business saw a 50% increase in sales. Increases were particularly evident in same day and 2-day grocery deliveries, prescription medications, electronics, and office supplies. Additional strong sales were seen in apparel, appliances, health and beauty products, and home furnishings. Our depots responded to unprecedented volume by shifting certain operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As circumstances allowed, expansion in fiscal 2020 continued, with the opening of 13 new warehouses. In fiscal 2021, we expect to open 20 new buildings. In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from holding the office of President under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

Contradiction

On 24 August 2015, former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe program and opined that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from holding that office due to her use of a private e-mail server for conducting government business while she was serving as secretary of state. Mukasey cited U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 as basis of his statement: During that initial appearance, he said that Clinton's wiping of data from her private e-mail server was the offense that violated the cited section of the U.S. Code and disqualified her from office: I think the more dangerous part of [the Clinton e-mail investigation], from her standpoint, is not so much the placement of the material here as wiping the server. Number one, that's a felony, but that statute disqualifies you from holding any further office in the United States and she's running for a further office under the United States. It is true that U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 establishes the concealment or destruction of some government records as a crime, and that public officeholders who violate the code are to be disqualified from 'holding any office under the United States': (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. However, when legal experts analyzed Mukasey's claim and his application of Title 18 to Hillary Clinton, they concluded it was not legally sound, and within a week even Mukasey agreed that his initial statement was problematic. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (and a legal analyst for the Washington Post) ended an August 2015 column on the controversy by opining that disqualifying a person from holding the office of President over a criminal sentence was possibly unconstitutional, and that the issue was moot in Clinton's case because even if she were found guilty of such an offense, she would be effectively disqualified from office in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law: [T]he Constitution does expressly allow Congress to make disqualification from future office part of the sentence in impeachment proceedings - but has no such provision as to criminal sentences. Of course, all this is likely practically moot, since if Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating the law, and is convicted for violating the law, such a trial would be a political disqualifier even if not a legal disqualifier; but I take it that the legal disqualification point might itself have some political force even if no trial takes place, and I thought it would be worth noting that the legal disqualification is likely unconstitutional. Volokh largely deferred to an assessment by former Rutgers Law School Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman, who countered Mukasey's initial statement by expanding on the 'unconstitutional' aspect raised by Volokh: Michael B. Mukasey, a former Attorney General of the United States (and former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), has stated that if former Secretary of State (and former Senator) Hillary Clinton is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071,[1] then she is disqualified from holding the presidency ... Mukasey's and Cause of Action's position is fundamentally misconceived; indeed, neither puts forward any authority for the position that Section 2071 or any other federal statute creates or could create a disqualification in regard to any elected federal position, including the presidency. It is widely accepted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton have come to stand for the proposition that neither Congress nor the States can add to the express textual qualifications for House and Senate seats in Article I. Importantly, the rationale of Powell and U.S. Term Limits - i.e., the primacy of the written Constitution's express provisions setting fixed textual qualifications - equally applies to the qualifications for the presidency (and vice presidency) in Article II. Indeed, this extension of Powell and U.S. Term Limits appears uncontroversial. For example, Chief Judge Posner opined: The democratic presumption is that any adult member of the polity ... is eligible to run for office ... The requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least 35 years old and Senators at least 30 is unusual and reflects the felt importance of mature judgment to the effective discharge of the duties of these important offices; nor, as the cases we have just cited hold, may Congress or the states supplement these requirements. Federal district courts, including those outside of Chief Judge Posner's Seventh Circuit, have taken a similar stance. So has persuasive scholarly authority. As a matter of constitutional structure, the case for exclusivity in regard to the Constitution's express textual qualifications for the presidency is stronger than the coordinate case for exclusivity in regard to qualifications for House and Senate seats. The power to judge members' qualifications is expressly and unambiguously committed to each house of Congress, but no such express power is unambiguously committed to Congress in regard to adjudicating a president's (or presidential candidate's or president-elect's) qualifications. It would seem to follow that if Congress has no power to add to the standing qualifications of its own members, it cannot add to the standing qualifications for the other elected constitutional positions, i.e., the President and Vice President. Any other result risks congressional aggrandizement at the expense of the presidency; any other result risks Congress's manipulating qualifications for the presidency so that Congress chooses the President, rather than the People of the United States. In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

In short, Tillman (and Volokh) held that the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President (i.e., having reached the age of 35 and having lived in the United States for 14 years) cannot be modified by Congress through the passage of laws, only by amending the Constitution itself. Prior to the August 2015 controversy, Prof. Matthew Franck had expressed much the same viewpoint in the National Review's 'Bench Memos' column. Addressing a prior version of the claim made in March 2015 by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Franck maintained that a statute such as Section 2071 did not have the judicial weight to override the Constitution and create additional disqualifying criteria: At first blush it appears that Kelly has it right. The presidency is an 'office under the United States,' as are all executive and judicial branch offices. (Members of either house of Congress are consistently not called 'officers' in the Constitution, or, so far as I know, in any federal statutes.) But a mere statute cannot legally disqualify a person from eligibility to the presidency, if he or she possesses the constitutional qualifications. Anyone who is a native-born citizen, 35 or older, who has been 14 years a resident of the country, and who receives a majority of the electoral votes cast for president as certified by the joint session of Congress held to count the ballots (or in the event of no such majority, the one who wins a majority of the states in the contingency balloting of the House), shall be sworn in as president. That is all in the Constitution, and it is not possible for Congress to add the further qualification 'and who has not been convicted of felony X.' No one in Congress could have thought that such a provision applied to the president, who can lose his office against his will only by being impeached by the House and convicted, after an impeachment trial, by the Senate. Even a conviction of a sitting president on a federal felony charge would not accomplish his removal from office. It follows that a statute that could not result in the removal of a sitting president does not contemplate the disqualification of any person to become president. The alternative ... leads us into all manner of absurdities, in which the Congress might add further disabilities to the constitutional ones that limit eligibility for the presidency. What other disqualifications, either for offenses against the law or for other reasons, might be added? Lack of military service? Lack of a college degree? ... A statute such as 18 U.S.C. §2071 can reasonably be read as controlling service in any office Congress has created by statute and whose process of appointment or election is not specified by the Constitution. It might then not be read as controlling appointment to an Article III judgeship at any level, but it could plausibly control appointment to any executive branch office, even at the Cabinet level. Those would be interesting interpretive questions. What is not so interesting, because the answer is so obvious, is whether this statute has any effect whatsoever on eligibility to be president. It doesn't, because it can't. Mukasey himself eventually concurred with Tillman and others that his original comment regarding Title 18, Section 2071 with respect to Hillary Clinton's eligibility was off the mark. Volokh appended his column with the following excerpt from a e-mail sent to him by Mukasey: [UPDATE: Michael Mukasey sent a very gracious e-mail yesterday evening to say that, 'on reflection, ... Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot on, and mine was mistaken.... The disqualification provision in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress took the violation in question, and how seriously we should take it, but that's all it is.']

A new government program gives all taxpaying Americans the right to collect 'cash rebates' on nearly every single purchase.

Contradiction

For over a year, unscrupulous financial sites (primarily the Oxford Club) have been trying to peddle costly memberships and newsletter subscriptions to consumers by deceptively touting that Congress recently passed a $42.4 billion 'consumer rebate program' entitling taxpaying Americans to a 'cash rebate on every single purchase' - a program that you, too, could cash in on ... if you paid $49 for a subscription to find out how: Such come-ons typically referenced a 'new' or 'secret' law that had been 'quietly' enacted at the end of 2015: Late on Friday, December 18, 2015, President Obama quietly signed a new 233-page Congressional act into law. There was little fanfare. After all, it was the weekend before Christmas. And most of the White House reporters had already gone home for the holidays. But buried deep inside the act, in Section 106, is a hidden bombshell ... one that I believe deserves your immediate attention. In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a 'Cash Rebate' on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. We're talking about an opportunity to collect a 'cash rebate' on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced 'cash rebate' program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with 'cash rebates on nearly every purchase' (at least not without stretching the definition of the word 'rebate' to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a 'cash rebate' program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not 'every taxpaying American.' As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the 'permanentization' of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And it's also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you won't have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a 'rebate to 119 million Americans' ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in 'no income tax' states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where they've been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a 'Cash Rebate' on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. We're talking about an opportunity to collect a 'cash rebate' on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced 'cash rebate' program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with 'cash rebates on nearly every purchase' (at least not without stretching the definition of the word 'rebate' to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a 'cash rebate' program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not 'every taxpaying American.' As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the 'permanentization' of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And it's also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you won't have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a 'rebate to 119 million Americans' ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in 'no income tax' states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where they've been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

A new government program gives all taxpaying Americans the right to collect 'cash rebates' on nearly every single purchase.

Contradiction

For over a year, unscrupulous financial sites (primarily the Oxford Club) have been trying to peddle costly memberships and newsletter subscriptions to consumers by deceptively touting that Congress recently passed a $42.4 billion 'consumer rebate program' entitling taxpaying Americans to a 'cash rebate on every single purchase' - a program that you, too, could cash in on ... if you paid $49 for a subscription to find out how: Such come-ons typically referenced a 'new' or 'secret' law that had been 'quietly' enacted at the end of 2015: Late on Friday, December 18, 2015, President Obama quietly signed a new 233-page Congressional act into law. There was little fanfare. After all, it was the weekend before Christmas. And most of the White House reporters had already gone home for the holidays. But buried deep inside the act, in Section 106, is a hidden bombshell ... one that I believe deserves your immediate attention. In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a 'Cash Rebate' on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. We're talking about an opportunity to collect a 'cash rebate' on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced 'cash rebate' program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with 'cash rebates on nearly every purchase' (at least not without stretching the definition of the word 'rebate' to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a 'cash rebate' program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not 'every taxpaying American.' As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the 'permanentization' of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And it's also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you won't have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a 'rebate to 119 million Americans' ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in 'no income tax' states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where they've been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a 'Cash Rebate' on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. We're talking about an opportunity to collect a 'cash rebate' on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced 'cash rebate' program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with 'cash rebates on nearly every purchase' (at least not without stretching the definition of the word 'rebate' to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a 'cash rebate' program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not 'every taxpaying American.' As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the 'permanentization' of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And it's also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you won't have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a 'rebate to 119 million Americans' ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in 'no income tax' states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where they've been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

A photograph shows two extremely muscular female bodybuilders.

Contradiction

A photograph purportedly showing two extremely muscle-bound women in skimpy swimsuits has been circulating online since at least as far back as May 2015: While the above-displayed photograph is often shared as a 'real' image of female bodybuilders, the women pictured were actually computer-generated by Deviant artist Andreas Siberis: 'The ripped, jacked, contest tanned, drenched in oil, blonde bombshell is Alexis. Was trying to pull off a photo of a smaller muscle girl being next to a bigger muscle girl; a normal look next to a contest look. The contrast is always amusing to look at.' Siberis, who says that his digital art focuses on '3D Female Muscle and Boobs, and occasionally other things,' said that the his bodybuilder image were created with Daz Studio and ZBrush: The pants were done in Daz Studio actually. Just regular dynamic optitex pants. I did have to fix them in ZBrush though, the pants kind of went bonkers.

A photograph purportedly showing two extremely muscle-bound women in skimpy swimsuits has been circulating online since at least as far back as May 2015: While the above-displayed photograph is often shared as a 'real' image of female bodybuilders, the women pictured were actually computer-generated by Deviant artist Andreas Siberis: 'The ripped, jacked, contest tanned, drenched in oil, blonde bombshell is Alexis. Was trying to pull off a photo of a smaller muscle girl being next to a bigger muscle girl; a normal look next to a contest look. The contrast is always amusing to look at.' Siberis, who says that his digital art focuses on '3D Female Muscle and Boobs, and occasionally other things,' said that the his bodybuilder image were created with Daz Studio and ZBrush: The pants were done in Daz Studio actually. Just regular dynamic optitex pants. I did have to fix them in ZBrush though, the pants kind of went bonkers.

A photograph shows two extremely muscular female bodybuilders.

Contradiction

A photograph purportedly showing two extremely muscle-bound women in skimpy swimsuits has been circulating online since at least as far back as May 2015: While the above-displayed photograph is often shared as a 'real' image of female bodybuilders, the women pictured were actually computer-generated by Deviant artist Andreas Siberis: 'The ripped, jacked, contest tanned, drenched in oil, blonde bombshell is Alexis. Was trying to pull off a photo of a smaller muscle girl being next to a bigger muscle girl; a normal look next to a contest look. The contrast is always amusing to look at.' Siberis, who says that his digital art focuses on '3D Female Muscle and Boobs, and occasionally other things,' said that the his bodybuilder image were created with Daz Studio and ZBrush: The pants were done in Daz Studio actually. Just regular dynamic optitex pants. I did have to fix them in ZBrush though, the pants kind of went bonkers.

A photograph purportedly showing two extremely muscle-bound women in skimpy swimsuits has been circulating online since at least as far back as May 2015: While the above-displayed photograph is often shared as a 'real' image of female bodybuilders, the women pictured were actually computer-generated by Deviant artist Andreas Siberis: 'The ripped, jacked, contest tanned, drenched in oil, blonde bombshell is Alexis. Was trying to pull off a photo of a smaller muscle girl being next to a bigger muscle girl; a normal look next to a contest look. The contrast is always amusing to look at.' Siberis, who says that his digital art focuses on '3D Female Muscle and Boobs, and occasionally other things,' said that the his bodybuilder image were created with Daz Studio and ZBrush: The pants were done in Daz Studio actually. Just regular dynamic optitex pants. I did have to fix them in ZBrush though, the pants kind of went bonkers.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris said, 'If elected [president] and you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order and the police will show up at your door.

Contradiction

On 22 April 2019, a quote ostensibly uttered by then-Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris concerning an alleged plan to confiscate guns via an executive order started to circulate on social media: This was not a genuine statement from Harris. The quote - 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door' - started circulating a few days after she talked about her views on gun control during a CNN Town Hall. During the event, Harris said she would give Congress 100 days to act on gun control before taking executive action: Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. However, Harris never said the order would result in the forcible confiscation of citizen-owned guns. In fact, Harris made a point to say that this would not be the case. As she explained her position on gun control, she noted that Americans are typically given a 'false choice' between protecting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and confiscating all guns. Harris said the public needs middle-ground options, and that her proposal constituted a 'reasonable' approach to gun control. Here's Harris' full statement from CNN's transcript of the event: QUESTION: As a future educator, I am really bothered that public schools are being targets for mass shootings. Two days ago was the 20th anniversary of the Columbine massacre, but still two decades later no major gun control legislation has been passed. So my question is, as president, who will you go about keeping our schools safe and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them? HARRIS: Thank you, Ben. And I'm sure that there are plenty of students here who, while you were in high school, even middle school, that you had to participate in a drill, right, where you were convened and your teachers taught you about how you need to go and run in a closet because there may be a mass shooter roaming the hallways of your school. And in our America, that should never have to happen. (APPLAUSE) Conversations take place every night. Conversations take place every night between students and their parents. Why do these things have to happen? Why do we have to have a drill like that? To which, of course, the response is, because there are people in Washington, D.C., supposed leaders, who have failed to have the courage to reject a false choice which suggests you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away. Supposed leaders in Washington, D.C., who have failed to have the courage to recognize, you know what, you want to go hunting, that's fine, but we need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, starting with universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapon ban. But they have failed to have the courage to act. So, Ben, here is my response to you. Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns. I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license. And by the way, ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, well, the ATF has been doing a lot of the 'A' and the 'T,' but not much of the 'F.' And we need to fix that. (APPLAUSE) And then - on the third piece, because none of us have been sleeping over the last two years, part of what has happened under the current administration is they took fugitives off the list of prohibited people. I'd put them back on the list, meaning that fugitives from justice should not be able to purchase a handgun or any kind of weapon. So that's what I'd do. In summary, Harris did say she would take executive action on gun control if Congress failed to act within 100 days of her taking office as president. Her proposed executive order would include gun-control measures such as implementing universal background checks and renewing the ban on assault weapons. But the viral quote about an executive order to confiscate guns appears to be an inaccurate paraphrase of the Democratic candidate's statement on the matter.

In summary, Harris did say she would take executive action on gun control if Congress failed to act within 100 days of her taking office as president. Her proposed executive order would include gun-control measures such as implementing universal background checks and renewing the ban on assault weapons. But the viral quote about an executive order to confiscate guns appears to be an inaccurate paraphrase of the Democratic candidate's statement on the matter.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris said, 'If elected [president] and you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order and the police will show up at your door.

Contradiction

On 22 April 2019, a quote ostensibly uttered by then-Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris concerning an alleged plan to confiscate guns via an executive order started to circulate on social media: This was not a genuine statement from Harris. The quote - 'If elected & you don't surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order & the police will show up at your door' - started circulating a few days after she talked about her views on gun control during a CNN Town Hall. During the event, Harris said she would give Congress 100 days to act on gun control before taking executive action: Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. However, Harris never said the order would result in the forcible confiscation of citizen-owned guns. In fact, Harris made a point to say that this would not be the case. As she explained her position on gun control, she noted that Americans are typically given a 'false choice' between protecting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and confiscating all guns. Harris said the public needs middle-ground options, and that her proposal constituted a 'reasonable' approach to gun control. Here's Harris' full statement from CNN's transcript of the event: QUESTION: As a future educator, I am really bothered that public schools are being targets for mass shootings. Two days ago was the 20th anniversary of the Columbine massacre, but still two decades later no major gun control legislation has been passed. So my question is, as president, who will you go about keeping our schools safe and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them? HARRIS: Thank you, Ben. And I'm sure that there are plenty of students here who, while you were in high school, even middle school, that you had to participate in a drill, right, where you were convened and your teachers taught you about how you need to go and run in a closet because there may be a mass shooter roaming the hallways of your school. And in our America, that should never have to happen. (APPLAUSE) Conversations take place every night. Conversations take place every night between students and their parents. Why do these things have to happen? Why do we have to have a drill like that? To which, of course, the response is, because there are people in Washington, D.C., supposed leaders, who have failed to have the courage to reject a false choice which suggests you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away. Supposed leaders in Washington, D.C., who have failed to have the courage to recognize, you know what, you want to go hunting, that's fine, but we need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, starting with universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapon ban. But they have failed to have the courage to act. So, Ben, here is my response to you. Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns. I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license. And by the way, ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, well, the ATF has been doing a lot of the 'A' and the 'T,' but not much of the 'F.' And we need to fix that. (APPLAUSE) And then - on the third piece, because none of us have been sleeping over the last two years, part of what has happened under the current administration is they took fugitives off the list of prohibited people. I'd put them back on the list, meaning that fugitives from justice should not be able to purchase a handgun or any kind of weapon. So that's what I'd do. In summary, Harris did say she would take executive action on gun control if Congress failed to act within 100 days of her taking office as president. Her proposed executive order would include gun-control measures such as implementing universal background checks and renewing the ban on assault weapons. But the viral quote about an executive order to confiscate guns appears to be an inaccurate paraphrase of the Democratic candidate's statement on the matter.

In summary, Harris did say she would take executive action on gun control if Congress failed to act within 100 days of her taking office as president. Her proposed executive order would include gun-control measures such as implementing universal background checks and renewing the ban on assault weapons. But the viral quote about an executive order to confiscate guns appears to be an inaccurate paraphrase of the Democratic candidate's statement on the matter.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

Syrian refugees are bringing a communicable flesh-eating disease into the United States.

Contradiction

On 20 December 2015, the web site Breitbart published an article titled 'EXCLUSIVE - Syrian Refugees Bringing Flesh-Eating Disease into U.S.?', which held: There is a risk that Middle Eastern refugees entering the U.​S​.​ could be infected with a flesh-eating disease that is sweeping across Syria. Health agencies confirmed that Syrian refugees have transported leishmaniasis to Lebanon and Turkey, where it has been difficult to manage and treat. Refugees who enter the U.S. must undergo medical screening according to protocols established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Each refugee must submit to a physical examination, ​including a skin test and possibly a chest x-ray ​to check for tuberculosis,​as well as a blood test for syphilis. The blood tests do not currently look for leishmani​a​sis. Clearly, ​an attending doctor ​could easily spot a patient with obvious skin ulcers. However, leishmani​a​sis cannot be detected upon physical examination if the patient is asymptomatic, as can be the case for years. On 21 December 2015, the web site Patriot Crier built upon the claim with an article titled 'BREAKING: TERRIFYING NEW DISEASE ROCKS THE NATION as Syrian 'REFUGEES' ENTER AMERICA ...' It began: We've all been concerned that Syrian refugees were going to bring extremist beliefs and ideologies into the United States. But what about about leishmaniasis? You may have a puzzled look on your face right now...Don't worry...you're about to learn what that is. Although that article didn't feature an image, it populated the above-reproduced photograph when the link was shared on Facebook. The appended image was unrelated; it appeared to depict a different infection known as amebiasis. The articles referenced leishmaniasis, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has occurred in the United States, although rarely. A CDC FAQ addressed whether leishmaniasis is found in the United States, and explained: Not usually. Almost all of the cases of leishmaniasis diagnosed in the United States are in people who became infected while traveling or living in other countries. Occasional cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis have been acquired in Texas and Oklahoma. No cases of visceral leishmaniasis are known to have been acquired in the United States. The CDC said that the disease is generally spread by a certain type of insect: The main way is through the bite of infected female phlebotomine sand flies. Sand flies become infected by sucking blood from an infected animal or person. Some types (species) of Leishmania parasites also may be spread via contaminated needles (needle sharing) or blood transfusions. Congenital transmission (spread from a pregnant woman to her baby) has been reported. On a separate page (subtitled 'Epidemiology & Risk Factors'), the CDC added: Leishmaniasis is found in people in focal areas of more than 90 countries in the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe. The ecologic settings range from rain forests to deserts. Leishmaniasis usually is more common in rural than in urban areas, but it is found in the outskirts of some cities. Climate and other environmental changes have the potential to expand the geographic range of the sand fly vectors and the areas in the world where leishmaniasis is found. Leishmaniasis is found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. A fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) further emphasized that the manner of transmission is overwhelmingly insect-to-human: Leishmaniasis is caused by a protozoa parasite from over 20 Leishmania species and is transmitted to humans by the bite of infected female phlebotomine sandflies. Over 90 sandfly species are known to transmit Leishmania parasites. There are 3 main forms of the disease[.] In an 18 December 2015 ScienceAlert article, University of Glasgow Professor of Biochemical Parasitology Michael Barrett described the concerns as a manifestation of epidemiologic xenophobia: It is sandflies, not people, that transmit the disease and though they are found throughout the tropics and subtropics, they can't survive in colder climates. The visceral form of leishmaniasis is already endemic in parts of southern Europe including Spain, Italy and the south of France, but the disease tends to only manifest itself in people with weak immune systems such as those infected with HIV. This highlights the fact that people in prosperous regions where nutrition and general health are good are at limited risk ... Although Turkey might be at risk of increased incidence of the cutaneous disease due to the flow of refugees from Syria, again it is worth highlighting that people with access to good nutrition and in generally good health are less vulnerable. Concerns about imported germs, of course, are nothing new. Just last year, European airports were decorated with posters warning of Ebola, and those coming from West Africa were subjected to mandatory tests for signs of fever. But we should be careful of warnings of diseases spreading to developed countries, where healthcare systems and levels of public health are much more capable of preventing and treating infectious condition, even in instances where those diseases could spread. Plus the wider availability of treatments in Europe creates an opportunity to provide healthcare to incoming sick refugees. Barrett was correct in his statement that opposition to immigration and asylum couched in terms disease is 'nothing new.' For example, in mid-2014, unaccompanied minor immigrants from Central and South America were widely and baselessly blamed for an outbreak of Enterovirus D68. As the linked snopes.com page from 2014 noted, such claims were nearly identical in tenor and shape: Media figures such as Schlafly and Pat Robertson have speculated that the EV-D68 outbreak started with immigrant children, with Robertson blaming minor migrants who have carried 'with them viruses that we were not familiar with in the United States and haven't built up immunity to.' Given that the particular strain of the virus now affecting Americans was recorded in the U.S. as far back as 1987, the claim that the current outbreak of Enterovirus D68 is due solely or primarily to that strain's being carried to the U.S. by immigrant children is a problematic one. The 'foreigners carrying disease' trope has, in fact, been present in American discourse for more than a century, and seems to reappear every time an immigrant or refugee population shows up in the United States. In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

In short, leishmaniasis infections in Syria increased due to a breakdown in the country's infrastructure during a larger, ongoing conflict. However, Syrian refugees are not known vectors of the illness. While human-to-human transmission is possible in rare circumstances, the disease's vector is the sandfly. Leishmaniasis has occurred in the United States, but again, it is rare due to the U.S.'s climate and its generally low-risk population.

U.S. President-elect Joe Biden won millions more votes than there were eligible voters in the 2020 election.

Contradiction

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the month before Joe Biden's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, social media users including U.S. President Donald Trump circulated posts alleging results of the 2020 election included more votes than statistically possible. Numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation into the claim that attempted to cast doubt on Biden's victory, including this viral post: 'Simple Math: Trump got 74 million votes and there are only 133 million registered voters in the USA. Even if EVERYONE who's registered actually voted, there would only be 59 million votes left for Biden. So how the hell did Biden get 81 million votes? 22 million extra?' In late December, Trump shared the below-displayed tweet by the founder of The Gateway Pundit, a pro-Trump hub of online conspiracies. An article on the website claimed Bill Binney, a former U.S. intelligence official, used back-of-the-napkin math to uncover a nefarious scheme by Trump's political enemies to inflate voting tallies for Biden. Various versions of the assertion, all using slightly different numbers of alleged registered voters in the 2020 presidential election, surfaced around the same time. Despite the differences, their underlying claim was this: Biden received millions more votes than there were eligible voters as of Nov. 3. 'However you look at it, it doesn't add up,' @MSMFactChecking tweeted of Biden's widely accepted tally of more than 81 million votes. That Twitter account brands itself as a nonpartisan service exposing errors in media coverage but in reality perpetuates misleading or false content itself. The above-displayed posts correctly reported Trump's total (about 74 million votes), but beyond that their arguments were flawed for many reasons. Namely, they conflated the number of people who were legally able to vote in the Trump-Biden election - meaning they met requirements regarding age, citizenship status, residency, and other criteria - with the group of people who actually registered to vote. Elections officials call the former group 'eligible voters' and the latter demographic 'registered voters.' In other words, the country's number of registered voters is the same as its total votes. Let us unpack the specifics of the misleading calculation. Sourcing statistics from a website that compiles global population data called World Population Review, Binney and @MSMFactChecking claimed about 212 million people were registered to vote in the Trump-Biden election, while another viral meme (the first image in this report) claimed 133 million. But in actuality, there were more than 158 million registered voters in the 2020 presidential election, according to the U.S. Elections Project, a database of voter data compiled by a University of Florida political science professor. The project was among the most trusted sources of such information as of this report. The U.S. Census Bureau had not released its voter registration totals yet. So the viral posts inaccurately reported the number of people who submitted ballots in the election. That said, elections officials considered some 239 million people to be eligible voters in the 2020 presidential election, according to the Elections Project. That meant, since more than 158 million people actually went through the steps of voting in the presidential election, it was true to claim 66.1% of people who could legally vote did so. That percentage represented voter turnout. That was another step where the viral posts went wrong. They attempted to convince people to calculate voter turnout by finding roughly 60 to 65% of what they framed as eligible voters (but erroneously called registered voters). For example, Binney tweeted: With 212 Million registered voters and 66.2% voting,140.344 M voted. Now if Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden. These numbers don't add up to what we are being told. Lies and more Lies! In short, he and other conspiracy theorists alleged Biden claimed millions more votes than was possible if only some 140 million people voted in the 2020 presidential election, though they did not refute Trump's widely published total of 74 million votes from the same sources as Biden's 81 million tally. In sum, basic arithmetic to calculate voter turnout would not show 'extra' ballots for Biden or millions more votes than eligible voters if the posts would have correctly framed the number of 'registered voters' as the percentage of people who voted within the sum of eligible voters. Below you can see the differences between calculations by Binney, as well as the viral meme (first image in this report), and the correct formula for determining voter turnout: Binney's allegation: Binney takes 66.2% of 212 million to arrive at the conclusion that 140 million people submitted ballots. Of that total, 74 million people voted for Trump, leaving only about 66 million votes possible for Biden. But elections officials and the news media reported Biden received more than 81 million votes. The viral meme's allegation: 133 million people were eligible to vote and an unknown fraction within that total submitted ballots. Of that proportion less than 133 million, 74 million people voted for Trump, leaving up to 59 million votes possible for Biden. That was 22 million less than Biden's actual tally. The actual numbers: 239 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots for Biden or Trump, totaling about 158 million votes. Of that sum, Trump received roughly 74 million votes and third-party candidates (including Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins) garnered almost 3 million votes. Meanwhile, the remaining votes in the presidential election - totaling about 81 million - were for Biden. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, basic arithmetic to calculate voter turnout would not show 'extra' ballots for Biden or millions more votes than eligible voters if the posts would have correctly framed the number of 'registered voters' as the percentage of people who voted within the sum of eligible voters. Below you can see the differences between calculations by Binney, as well as the viral meme (first image in this report), and the correct formula for determining voter turnout: Binney's allegation: Binney takes 66.2% of 212 million to arrive at the conclusion that 140 million people submitted ballots. Of that total, 74 million people voted for Trump, leaving only about 66 million votes possible for Biden. But elections officials and the news media reported Biden received more than 81 million votes. The viral meme's allegation: 133 million people were eligible to vote and an unknown fraction within that total submitted ballots. Of that proportion less than 133 million, 74 million people voted for Trump, leaving up to 59 million votes possible for Biden. That was 22 million less than Biden's actual tally. The actual numbers: 239 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots for Biden or Trump, totaling about 158 million votes. Of that sum, Trump received roughly 74 million votes and third-party candidates (including Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins) garnered almost 3 million votes. Meanwhile, the remaining votes in the presidential election - totaling about 81 million - were for Biden. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.'

Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg was named the 'highest paid activist' by People With Money magazine.

Contradiction

In September 2019, as the spotlight shined bright on teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg, detractors attempted to discredit her with a variety of false rumors. For instance, some started sharing a doctored photograph of Thunberg with alt-right boogeyman George Soros (the original photograph featured former Vice President Al Gore). Others shared a miscaptioned image purportedly showing Thunberg with a member of ISIS (Thunberg was not in this photograph.) Another image purported to show Thunberg on the cover of People with Money magazine after she was named the 'highest paid activist.' This is not a genuine magazine cover. This image was created by the website MediaMass from a template the site has frequently employed in the past. Since at least 2013, MediaMass has created dozens of fake magazine covers of 'highest paid' people. These doctored images have featured celebrities such as John Legend, Chuck Norris, Bob Dylan, Susan Boyle, and Reba McEntire: These covers are all identical with the exception of the main image. It appears that MediaMass simply places a basic template over a photograph of a celebrity. Here's a look at the blank template: MediaMass published its fake magazine cover featuring Thunberg in an article titled 'Greta Thunberg Highest-Paid Activist in the World.' While the article initially reads like a genuine magazine piece, an update after the first paragraph explained that the rumor was false. Those who clicked on the explanation were directed to a disclaimer about MediaMass' content: The website mediamass.net is the medium of our satire to expose with humour, exaggeration and ridicule the contemporary mass production and mass consumption that we observe. Also it will not only mock the producers (mainstream media, journalists) as it is common when questioning and criticizing mass media, but also the consumers as one cannot exist without the other. Sensationalism, lack of verification of information, ethics and standards issues are only symptoms of the actual social and economic order. This is particularly obvious when observing the role of social networking sites in spreading rumours. In short, Thunberg was not named the 'highest paid activist' on the cover of People with Money magazine. This is a fake magazine cover created by a satire website.

In short, Thunberg was not named the 'highest paid activist' on the cover of People with Money magazine. This is a fake magazine cover created by a satire website.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar once said she hated living in the United States and was better off in a refugee camp in Kenya (or words to that effect).

Contradiction

In the spring of 2019, Facebook posts emerged that claimed U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) had said she was 'much better off' in a refugee camp in Kenya than she was in the United States, and that she 'hates living' in her adopted country. The meme was typically worded as follows: 'Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said she was much better off in Kenya at a refugee camp ... she said she hates living in America.' Another widely shared version of the meme added the words: 'Deport her!': In reality, Omar has not said she was 'much better off' (or words to that effect) in a Kenyan refugee camp, nor that she 'hates living in' the United States. Those descriptions appear to be a gross distortion of nuanced remarks Omar made in early 2019. They also feed into the narrative, largely cultivated by her right-leaning critics and opponents, that Omar - a naturalized U.S. citizen and one of the first two Muslim women ever to serve in Congress - is anti-American or part of a shadowy Muslim takeover of American institutions. Analysis None of the memes mentioned above was accompanied by any sources, but they appear to have been referring to comments Omar made in early 2019. Similar claims were put forth in a 3 April article from the right-leaning FrontPageMag website, which bore the headline 'Omar Felt More Accepted in Kenyan Refugee Camp Than in U.S.' and went on to state: 'In an interview with Vogue Arabia, Rep. Omar, a refugee originally from Somalia who became a U.S. citizen nearly 20 years ago, waxed nostalgic about her days in a Kenyan refugee camp. She spent four years there as a child before resettling in the United States. At the refugee camp, Omar said, she could express her full identity. She felt free to be herself, living amongst like-minded people who looked and believed as she did. 'When you're a kid and you're raised in an all-black, all-Muslim environment, nobody really talks to you about your identity,' Omar said. 'You just are. There is freedom in knowing that you are accepted as your full self. So the notion that there is a conflict with your identity in society was hard at the age of 12.'' In her March 2019 Vogue interview, Omar did speak negatively about what she characterized as latent bigotry in American society being brought to the surface under the presidency of Donald Trump: ''It's challenging,' she says of living in President Trump's America, where her status and heritage is constantly criticized. 'It's an everyday assault. Every day, a part of your identity is threatened, demonized, and vilified. Trump is tapping into an ugly part of our society and freeing its ugliness.'' However, in the same breath she expressed a determination to 'uphold the values we [Americans] share - that this is a society that was built on the idea that you could start anew. And what that celebrates is immigrant heritage.' Omar also recalled the contrast she perceived as a child between her comfort as a black, Muslim girl surrounded by her black, Muslim family, and the ways in which those parts of her identity became a source of conflict for her in the U.S.: ''[Arriving in the U.S.] was the first time that all of the identities I carried and had pride in, became a source of tension,' she recalls. 'When you're a kid and you're raised in an all-black, all-Muslim environment, nobody really talks to you about your identity. You just are. There is freedom in knowing that you are accepted as your full self. So the notion that there is a conflict with your identity in society was hard at the age of 12.'' (In the past, Omar has recalled suffering racially and religiously motivated bullying when she and her family lived in Arlington, Va., before settling in Minneapolis). In her Vogue interview, Omar did not say she hated living in the U.S., nor that she felt she was 'better off' while living in a refugee camp in Kenya, as the meme falsely claimed. Rather, she offered a nuanced and somewhat critical appraisal of her personal experience of both arriving in the U.S. as a child and living in the U.S. in 2019, while also articulating a desire to promote American principles. In a similar vein, a March 2019 New York Post column by Seth Barron attacked Omar's 'complaints' about aspects of American life: What is surprising is the extent to which her narrative consists of complaints about the intolerance, racism, inequity, and filth that she found when she came to the United States, and since. Gratitude, for the country and the people who saved and welcomed her family, is largely absent from her telling. Interviewed on the popular Pod Save America podcast, Omar explained that when her family was preparing for resettlement in America, they watched orientation videos 'about the life that they are to expect once they arrive here ... happy families, and dinner tables where there is an abundance of food, images of happy young children running off to their school buses ... images of a country where people are happy and leading a life that is prosperous. You are really looking forward to life as you see it on that screen.' Life in America was not like the images she saw in the welcome video, Omar insists. 'When we landed,' she recalls, 'I saw panhandlers on the side of the streets, there being trash everywhere, and graffiti on the side of the walls.' Omar asked her father why America fell so short of what she had been promised, and he told her to 'hold on, we will get to our America.' Omar has still not arrived in the America she was promised, though she has now been elected to Congress. We continue to disappoint her. 'The current reality that people live in ... an America where you can't access the justice system equally because you are born with a different race, or a different gender, or are born into a different class, that isn't the America that I heard about, that isn't the America that I watched.' Barron quoted accurately from Omar's interview on Pod Save America, which can be heard here. However, his characterization of her remarks also conflated hatred or antipathy towards the United States with criticism of the ways in which the country does had not - in Omar's view - lived up to its promise. The Minnesota congresswoman frequently talks in such terms, expressing a determination to, in her perception, bring the reality of American society closer to the image and ideals of prosperity, justice, and egalitarianism that many Americans hold dear. Over the years, many American citizens and politicians, like Omar, have advocated for social and economic reforms in exactly that way. President Trump, for example, provided in his 2017 inauguration speech a rather bleak and critical appraisal of the current state of affairs in American society, declaring: '... For too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted-out factories, scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, an education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge, and the crime, and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.' Conclusion The memes that claimed Omar had said she hates living in the U.S. and was better off in a Kenyan refugee camp provided no sources to support those characterizations. No such sources exist because Omar has never publicly said she hates living in the U.S. and was better off in such a camp. Furthermore, March and April 2019 opinion columns that appear to have inspired the claims contained in the memes took some of Omar's principled criticisms of aspects of American life - a longstanding feature of American public discourse - and misrepresented them as expressions of anti-Americanism or a preference for living in a refugee camp over living in the U.S.

Conclusion The memes that claimed Omar had said she hates living in the U.S. and was better off in a Kenyan refugee camp provided no sources to support those characterizations. No such sources exist because Omar has never publicly said she hates living in the U.S. and was better off in such a camp. Furthermore, March and April 2019 opinion columns that appear to have inspired the claims contained in the memes took some of Omar's principled criticisms of aspects of American life - a longstanding feature of American public discourse - and misrepresented them as expressions of anti-Americanism or a preference for living in a refugee camp over living in the U.S.

A video shows Fox News host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with the tenets of democratic socialism.

Contradiction

On Sept. 18, 2020, a video clip started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed Fox News' host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with democratic socialism after his guest, political activist Cornel West, described the ideology as providing ordinary people the opportunity to 'live lives of decency.' One version of the video racked up close to 4 million views within a day of its initial posting: Tucker Carlson finally met Jesus, turns out it was Cornel West the entire time. pic.twitter.com/grNTEKr8os - New York Socialist (@berniebromanny) September 18, 2020 This is a genuine clip of West and Carlson on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight. However, this clip did not air in 2020 (it's actually from 2018) and it doesn't capture Carlson's full comments about democratic socialism. The clip comes from a July 2018 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight. While the above-displayed clip is genuine, the footage is cut off right before the 'but' Carlson was building to in his remarks and it doesn't fully encapsulate the Fox News host's position on democratic socialism. In the full clip, which can be viewed below, Carlson adds: 'But the details matter [...] Has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere?' Here's the full clip from Fox News. Carlson introduces West around the 2:20 mark: A transcript of the relevant portions of this broadcast appears below. The first block quote shows the portion of this conversation that was included in the viral video. The first few lines (italicized) come just before the start of the viral video: CARLSON: So, give us some sense of what democratic socialism is. Can you point to an example, and extant example of it, that works? Venezuela seems like an example of democratic socialism? Would you say that it is? And if so, does it work? WEST: No, I don't think that democratic socialism as an ideal has been able to be embodied in a larger social context. There's different forms of it. Some are bad, some are medium, some are better. But the fundamental commitment is to the dignity of ordinary people and to make sure they can live lives of decency. So, it's not an -ism, no, brother. It's about decency. It's about fairness. It's about the accountability of the powerful vis-a-vis those who have less power - at the workplace, women dealing with a household, gays, lesbians, trans, black people, indigenous peoples, immigrants. How do we ensure that they are treated decently and that the powerful don't in any way manipulate, subjugate and exploit them. CARLSON: I mean, if that's democratic socialism is, then I'm basically on board. I do think that ordinary people, middle-class people ought to have dignity. WEST: Absolutely. CARLSON: And I think that our current systems make it hard for them to have dignity. So, I agree with all of that. The following transcript shows the conversation that was left out of the viral video: CARLSON: But the details matter. WEST: That's precisely why - that's why Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, we can go on and on, they're all democratic socialists. Michael Harrington, one of the great founders of Democratic Socialism of America - CARLSON: I understand. But has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere. So, the question is not what are our goals. Our goals are the same. How do we get there is the question. So, what happened in Venezuela? They called that democratic socialism, but they don't have toilet paper, and it's less equal than ever. In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

A video shows Fox News host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with the tenets of democratic socialism.

Contradiction

On Sept. 18, 2020, a video clip started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed Fox News' host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with democratic socialism after his guest, political activist Cornel West, described the ideology as providing ordinary people the opportunity to 'live lives of decency.' One version of the video racked up close to 4 million views within a day of its initial posting: Tucker Carlson finally met Jesus, turns out it was Cornel West the entire time. pic.twitter.com/grNTEKr8os - New York Socialist (@berniebromanny) September 18, 2020 This is a genuine clip of West and Carlson on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight. However, this clip did not air in 2020 (it's actually from 2018) and it doesn't capture Carlson's full comments about democratic socialism. The clip comes from a July 2018 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight. While the above-displayed clip is genuine, the footage is cut off right before the 'but' Carlson was building to in his remarks and it doesn't fully encapsulate the Fox News host's position on democratic socialism. In the full clip, which can be viewed below, Carlson adds: 'But the details matter [...] Has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere?' Here's the full clip from Fox News. Carlson introduces West around the 2:20 mark: A transcript of the relevant portions of this broadcast appears below. The first block quote shows the portion of this conversation that was included in the viral video. The first few lines (italicized) come just before the start of the viral video: CARLSON: So, give us some sense of what democratic socialism is. Can you point to an example, and extant example of it, that works? Venezuela seems like an example of democratic socialism? Would you say that it is? And if so, does it work? WEST: No, I don't think that democratic socialism as an ideal has been able to be embodied in a larger social context. There's different forms of it. Some are bad, some are medium, some are better. But the fundamental commitment is to the dignity of ordinary people and to make sure they can live lives of decency. So, it's not an -ism, no, brother. It's about decency. It's about fairness. It's about the accountability of the powerful vis-a-vis those who have less power - at the workplace, women dealing with a household, gays, lesbians, trans, black people, indigenous peoples, immigrants. How do we ensure that they are treated decently and that the powerful don't in any way manipulate, subjugate and exploit them. CARLSON: I mean, if that's democratic socialism is, then I'm basically on board. I do think that ordinary people, middle-class people ought to have dignity. WEST: Absolutely. CARLSON: And I think that our current systems make it hard for them to have dignity. So, I agree with all of that. The following transcript shows the conversation that was left out of the viral video: CARLSON: But the details matter. WEST: That's precisely why - that's why Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, we can go on and on, they're all democratic socialists. Michael Harrington, one of the great founders of Democratic Socialism of America - CARLSON: I understand. But has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere. So, the question is not what are our goals. Our goals are the same. How do we get there is the question. So, what happened in Venezuela? They called that democratic socialism, but they don't have toilet paper, and it's less equal than ever. In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

A video shows Fox News host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with the tenets of democratic socialism.

Contradiction

On Sept. 18, 2020, a video clip started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed Fox News' host Tucker Carlson saying that he was 'basically on board' with democratic socialism after his guest, political activist Cornel West, described the ideology as providing ordinary people the opportunity to 'live lives of decency.' One version of the video racked up close to 4 million views within a day of its initial posting: Tucker Carlson finally met Jesus, turns out it was Cornel West the entire time. pic.twitter.com/grNTEKr8os - New York Socialist (@berniebromanny) September 18, 2020 This is a genuine clip of West and Carlson on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight. However, this clip did not air in 2020 (it's actually from 2018) and it doesn't capture Carlson's full comments about democratic socialism. The clip comes from a July 2018 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight. While the above-displayed clip is genuine, the footage is cut off right before the 'but' Carlson was building to in his remarks and it doesn't fully encapsulate the Fox News host's position on democratic socialism. In the full clip, which can be viewed below, Carlson adds: 'But the details matter [...] Has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere?' Here's the full clip from Fox News. Carlson introduces West around the 2:20 mark: A transcript of the relevant portions of this broadcast appears below. The first block quote shows the portion of this conversation that was included in the viral video. The first few lines (italicized) come just before the start of the viral video: CARLSON: So, give us some sense of what democratic socialism is. Can you point to an example, and extant example of it, that works? Venezuela seems like an example of democratic socialism? Would you say that it is? And if so, does it work? WEST: No, I don't think that democratic socialism as an ideal has been able to be embodied in a larger social context. There's different forms of it. Some are bad, some are medium, some are better. But the fundamental commitment is to the dignity of ordinary people and to make sure they can live lives of decency. So, it's not an -ism, no, brother. It's about decency. It's about fairness. It's about the accountability of the powerful vis-a-vis those who have less power - at the workplace, women dealing with a household, gays, lesbians, trans, black people, indigenous peoples, immigrants. How do we ensure that they are treated decently and that the powerful don't in any way manipulate, subjugate and exploit them. CARLSON: I mean, if that's democratic socialism is, then I'm basically on board. I do think that ordinary people, middle-class people ought to have dignity. WEST: Absolutely. CARLSON: And I think that our current systems make it hard for them to have dignity. So, I agree with all of that. The following transcript shows the conversation that was left out of the viral video: CARLSON: But the details matter. WEST: That's precisely why - that's why Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, we can go on and on, they're all democratic socialists. Michael Harrington, one of the great founders of Democratic Socialism of America - CARLSON: I understand. But has it struck you as interesting that it's never actually worked anywhere. So, the question is not what are our goals. Our goals are the same. How do we get there is the question. So, what happened in Venezuela? They called that democratic socialism, but they don't have toilet paper, and it's less equal than ever. In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

In short, Carlson told West that he was 'on board' with the general goals of democratic socialism, which were defined by West in their exchange as making sure that ordinary people can live lives of decency. Carlson disagreed, however, that democratic socialism was the political ideology that could achieve that goal.

Kroger banned its employees from wearing American flag masks, but allowed them to wear BLM masks.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On Sept. 5, 2020, a message started circulating on Facebook claiming that grocery chain Kroger had banned its employees from wearing face masks adorned with the American flag, but permitted its employees to wear masks in support of the Black Lives Matter movement: There is no basis for this claim. This claim appears to have been made up out of whole cloth and placed against a colorful background, which, for some unexplained reason, lends statements unearned credibility. Kroger started requiring employees to wear face masks in stores in April 2020 in order to comply with CDC guidelines on how to best slow the spread of COVID-19. Kroger said at the time that they would be supplying masks for its employees. An employee news bulletin from Harris Teeter, a grocery store owned by Kroger, noted that employees could provide their own masks as long as the masks were of a solid color (or a simple pattern) and that they were absent of slogans or third party logos. We have not come across any news stories about Kroger employees being told not to wear American flag masks. We have, however, come across several stories about Kroger explicitly prohibiting employees from wearing BLM masks. In August 2020, there was a small controversy after some Kroger employees at stores in Detroit, Michigan, started wearing BLM shirts to work. According to Fox 2 Detroit, some employees also put on BLM masks. Management at these stores, however, told employees to remove or cover up these items, and a spokesperson for the store said that Kroger's uniform policy states that clothing 'must be clean, professional, and without visible pictures, logos, words or abbreviations.' Kroger said in a statement: 'Our uniform policy must be clean, professional, and without visible pictures, logos, words or abbreviations including masks (ONLY exception is Local UFCW 876 mask or company provided mask). All associates must wear aprons to show that we are here to serve our customers, communities and each other.' Kroger release a second statement acknowledging it wanted to 'offer a workplace that is uplifting, inclusive, and consistent with Our Values: Integrity, Honesty, Diversity, Inclusion, Safety and Respect' and that it had produced wristbands that employees could wear in order to show their support for Black customers and communities: 'At Kroger, we strive to offer a workplace that is uplifting, inclusive and consistent with Our Values: Integrity, Honesty, Diversity, Inclusion, Safety and Respect. Many associates have expressed a desire to stand together with their communities and show their support through their clothing, facial coverings and accessories. While we are not adjusting our existing dress code, rules or policies, we acknowledge our associates' feedback and want all to feel supported and heard. 'To offer a more consistent solution, we produced wristbands and made them available to all associates. Working with our partners, including a Black-owned supplier, we produced two wristband options, which were distributed in early July: one that represents our commitment to Standing Together with our Black associates, customers and communities against racism in all forms, and the other to serve as a reminder of Our Values that guide us.' In other words, Kroger does not allow its employees to wear BLM masks (or any masks containing slogans or logos) as claimed in the viral Facebook post. It's possible that flag masks would also be prohibited under this policy as well, but Kroger did not ban flag masks while allowing BLM masks. It's possible that the above-displayed Facebook post conflated Kroger with another grocery chain, Food Lion, which was briefly mired in controversy when they prohibited employees from wearing American flag masks. This, again, was not a 'ban' on the flag, but an enforcement of the grocery store's uniform policy, which, like Kroger, prohibited employees from wearing items with 'writing, insignia or symbols.' Food Lion later modified its policy to allow flag masks. In summary, Kroger started requiring employees to wear masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 in April 2020. The company provides masks to employees. For those who choose to wear their own masks, these face coverings have to conform to the company's uniform policy, which prohibits the display of slogans and logos, such as BLM. It's possible that this policy would also prevent employees from wearing flag masks, but we've yet to come across any reports from employees stating that this is the case. Regardless, it is false to say that Kroger banned flag masks while allowing BLM masks. We've reached out to Kroger for more information, and will update this article accordingly.

In summary, Kroger started requiring employees to wear masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 in April 2020. The company provides masks to employees. For those who choose to wear their own masks, these face coverings have to conform to the company's uniform policy, which prohibits the display of slogans and logos, such as BLM. It's possible that this policy would also prevent employees from wearing flag masks, but we've yet to come across any reports from employees stating that this is the case. Regardless, it is false to say that Kroger banned flag masks while allowing BLM masks. We've reached out to Kroger for more information, and will update this article accordingly.

Kroger banned its employees from wearing American flag masks, but allowed them to wear BLM masks.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On Sept. 5, 2020, a message started circulating on Facebook claiming that grocery chain Kroger had banned its employees from wearing face masks adorned with the American flag, but permitted its employees to wear masks in support of the Black Lives Matter movement: There is no basis for this claim. This claim appears to have been made up out of whole cloth and placed against a colorful background, which, for some unexplained reason, lends statements unearned credibility. Kroger started requiring employees to wear face masks in stores in April 2020 in order to comply with CDC guidelines on how to best slow the spread of COVID-19. Kroger said at the time that they would be supplying masks for its employees. An employee news bulletin from Harris Teeter, a grocery store owned by Kroger, noted that employees could provide their own masks as long as the masks were of a solid color (or a simple pattern) and that they were absent of slogans or third party logos. We have not come across any news stories about Kroger employees being told not to wear American flag masks. We have, however, come across several stories about Kroger explicitly prohibiting employees from wearing BLM masks. In August 2020, there was a small controversy after some Kroger employees at stores in Detroit, Michigan, started wearing BLM shirts to work. According to Fox 2 Detroit, some employees also put on BLM masks. Management at these stores, however, told employees to remove or cover up these items, and a spokesperson for the store said that Kroger's uniform policy states that clothing 'must be clean, professional, and without visible pictures, logos, words or abbreviations.' Kroger said in a statement: 'Our uniform policy must be clean, professional, and without visible pictures, logos, words or abbreviations including masks (ONLY exception is Local UFCW 876 mask or company provided mask). All associates must wear aprons to show that we are here to serve our customers, communities and each other.' Kroger release a second statement acknowledging it wanted to 'offer a workplace that is uplifting, inclusive, and consistent with Our Values: Integrity, Honesty, Diversity, Inclusion, Safety and Respect' and that it had produced wristbands that employees could wear in order to show their support for Black customers and communities: 'At Kroger, we strive to offer a workplace that is uplifting, inclusive and consistent with Our Values: Integrity, Honesty, Diversity, Inclusion, Safety and Respect. Many associates have expressed a desire to stand together with their communities and show their support through their clothing, facial coverings and accessories. While we are not adjusting our existing dress code, rules or policies, we acknowledge our associates' feedback and want all to feel supported and heard. 'To offer a more consistent solution, we produced wristbands and made them available to all associates. Working with our partners, including a Black-owned supplier, we produced two wristband options, which were distributed in early July: one that represents our commitment to Standing Together with our Black associates, customers and communities against racism in all forms, and the other to serve as a reminder of Our Values that guide us.' In other words, Kroger does not allow its employees to wear BLM masks (or any masks containing slogans or logos) as claimed in the viral Facebook post. It's possible that flag masks would also be prohibited under this policy as well, but Kroger did not ban flag masks while allowing BLM masks. It's possible that the above-displayed Facebook post conflated Kroger with another grocery chain, Food Lion, which was briefly mired in controversy when they prohibited employees from wearing American flag masks. This, again, was not a 'ban' on the flag, but an enforcement of the grocery store's uniform policy, which, like Kroger, prohibited employees from wearing items with 'writing, insignia or symbols.' Food Lion later modified its policy to allow flag masks. In summary, Kroger started requiring employees to wear masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 in April 2020. The company provides masks to employees. For those who choose to wear their own masks, these face coverings have to conform to the company's uniform policy, which prohibits the display of slogans and logos, such as BLM. It's possible that this policy would also prevent employees from wearing flag masks, but we've yet to come across any reports from employees stating that this is the case. Regardless, it is false to say that Kroger banned flag masks while allowing BLM masks. We've reached out to Kroger for more information, and will update this article accordingly.

In summary, Kroger started requiring employees to wear masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 in April 2020. The company provides masks to employees. For those who choose to wear their own masks, these face coverings have to conform to the company's uniform policy, which prohibits the display of slogans and logos, such as BLM. It's possible that this policy would also prevent employees from wearing flag masks, but we've yet to come across any reports from employees stating that this is the case. Regardless, it is false to say that Kroger banned flag masks while allowing BLM masks. We've reached out to Kroger for more information, and will update this article accordingly.

Actor and rapper Will Smith has a twin.

Contradiction

Actor and rapper Will Smith is also known for being a devoted family man. He frequently posts pictures of life with his children and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. After he posted a picture with his siblings, some online wondered if Smith himself was a twin. y'all made me think Will Smith had a twin - Adam Lance Garcia (@AdamLanceGarcia) May 6, 2021 On May 5, 2021, Smith posted a picture on his verified Instagram account wishing his brother and sister a happy birthday, saying 'My little brother & sister are 50 today!' Smith himself is not a twin, but he has two siblings who are. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Will Smith (@willsmith) His twin siblings, Ellen and Harry, are younger than Smith by around two years. They also have an older sister named Pamela who is 57. Given that Smith has two siblings who are twins but he himself does not have a twin, we rate this claim as 'False.'

Actor and rapper Will Smith is also known for being a devoted family man. He frequently posts pictures of life with his children and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. After he posted a picture with his siblings, some online wondered if Smith himself was a twin. y'all made me think Will Smith had a twin - Adam Lance Garcia (@AdamLanceGarcia) May 6, 2021 On May 5, 2021, Smith posted a picture on his verified Instagram account wishing his brother and sister a happy birthday, saying 'My little brother & sister are 50 today!' Smith himself is not a twin, but he has two siblings who are. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Will Smith (@willsmith) His twin siblings, Ellen and Harry, are younger than Smith by around two years. They also have an older sister named Pamela who is 57. Given that Smith has two siblings who are twins but he himself does not have a twin, we rate this claim as 'False.'

Actor and rapper Will Smith has a twin.

Contradiction

Actor and rapper Will Smith is also known for being a devoted family man. He frequently posts pictures of life with his children and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. After he posted a picture with his siblings, some online wondered if Smith himself was a twin. y'all made me think Will Smith had a twin - Adam Lance Garcia (@AdamLanceGarcia) May 6, 2021 On May 5, 2021, Smith posted a picture on his verified Instagram account wishing his brother and sister a happy birthday, saying 'My little brother & sister are 50 today!' Smith himself is not a twin, but he has two siblings who are. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Will Smith (@willsmith) His twin siblings, Ellen and Harry, are younger than Smith by around two years. They also have an older sister named Pamela who is 57. Given that Smith has two siblings who are twins but he himself does not have a twin, we rate this claim as 'False.'

Actor and rapper Will Smith is also known for being a devoted family man. He frequently posts pictures of life with his children and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. After he posted a picture with his siblings, some online wondered if Smith himself was a twin. y'all made me think Will Smith had a twin - Adam Lance Garcia (@AdamLanceGarcia) May 6, 2021 On May 5, 2021, Smith posted a picture on his verified Instagram account wishing his brother and sister a happy birthday, saying 'My little brother & sister are 50 today!' Smith himself is not a twin, but he has two siblings who are. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Will Smith (@willsmith) His twin siblings, Ellen and Harry, are younger than Smith by around two years. They also have an older sister named Pamela who is 57. Given that Smith has two siblings who are twins but he himself does not have a twin, we rate this claim as 'False.'

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

The United Nations (UN) ruled that the United States must pay slavery reparations to black Americans.

Contradiction

On 28 September 2016, a number of blogs and social media posts reported that the United Nations (UN) had ordered or demanded the United States pay reparations for slavery to black Americans: UN demands U.S. pay reparations to blacks for slavery So much for all the lives lost in the American Civil War. The Washington Post reported that a U.N. study says the United States should pay reparations to blacks for slavery. The rumor took off in part because of misleading headlines and also due to the hot-button nature of the concept of reparations on social media and in political discourse. Many readers simply spotted and shared headlines asserting the UN 'demanded' or 'ordered' the U.S. to pay reparations, even though such claims was dialed back in underlying article text: The Post notes the recommendations are 'nonbinding and unlikely to influence Washington, after a fact-finding mission in the United States in January.' Most versions of the claim cited a Washington Post article, itself somewhat misleadingly headlined 'U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for a History of 'Racial Terrorism,' Says U.N. Panel.' Most Americans interpret the concept of slavery reparations to specifically entail monies disbursed to black Americans as remuneration for the effects of slavery, but (again buried at the end of the piece) the excerpted material from 'a recent report by a U.N.-affiliated group based in Geneva' described something different entirely: The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ... psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' The Post also noted that the controversial notion was a recommendation issued by a U.N. panel to a U.N. council, not something directly decreed by the United Nations as a mandate involving the U.S.: This conclusion was part of a study by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a body that reports to the international organization's High Commissioner on Human Rights. The group of experts, which includes leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings to the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointing to the continuing link between present injustices and the dark chapters of American history. 'In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,' the report stated. 'Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.' Citing the past year's spate of police officers killing unarmed African American men, the panel warned against 'impunity for state violence,' which has created, in its words, a 'human rights crisis' that 'must be addressed as a matter of urgency.' In the 18 August 2016 report [PDF] tendered to the UN's Human Rights Council by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the concept of reparations made four appearances amid pages of findings and recommendations. In a section titled 'Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

Conclusions and recommendations,' the working group concluded: There is a profound need to acknowledge that the transatlantic trade in Africans, enslavement, colonization and colonialism were a crime against humanity and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, xenophobia and related intolerance. Past injustices and crimes against African Americans need to be addressed with reparatory justice. One of the recommendations described the (largely non-monetary) form such action might take: The Working Group encourages Congress to pass H.R. 40 - the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - which would establish a commission to examine enslavement and racial discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and to recommend appropriate remedies. The Working Group urges the United States to consider seriously applying analogous elements contained in the Caribbean Community's Ten-Point Action Plan on Reparations, which includes a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation. In its final appearance, reparations were referenced in respect to recent officer-involved shootings and ongoing racial animus in the United States as areas of deep concern: Despite the positive measures, the Working Group remains extremely concerned about the human rights situation of African Americans. In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching. Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As such, the bulk of conversation regarding the rumor was inaccurate in its scope. The UN didn't demand Americans pay reparations, nor did that body even make such a recommendation itself. A separate U.N. panel submitted an 18 August 2016 report on civil rights in the U.S. to the U.N. Council on Human Rights, and among the former's recommendations were 'reparatory justice.' However, that action was described as largely not involving cash payments and was rather a broad-based approach involving 'a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, an African knowledge programme, psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.' Nonetheless, like most rumors about reparations, the claim instantly went viral. In prior instances popular but false rumors held President Obama had mandated the payment of reparations via executive order (or simply mandated them without an executive order), or that a lawmaker in Texas quietly sneaked reparations into a piece of legislation that was later passed.

In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries.

Contradiction

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for 'caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.' The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an 'Emerging Leaders' program focused 'on helping veterans start small businesses after military life.' And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didn't report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries - Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children' posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House 'spending report' sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause. ... It's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? Oh that's right, they don't cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened 'today.' However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods - particularly the section that read as follows: While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being 'in the first quarter,' and simply replaced it with 'all $400,000' (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries.

Contradiction

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for 'caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.' The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an 'Emerging Leaders' program focused 'on helping veterans start small businesses after military life.' And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didn't report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries - Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children' posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House 'spending report' sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause. ... It's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? Oh that's right, they don't cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened 'today.' However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods - particularly the section that read as follows: While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being 'in the first quarter,' and simply replaced it with 'all $400,000' (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries.

Contradiction

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for 'caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.' The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an 'Emerging Leaders' program focused 'on helping veterans start small businesses after military life.' And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didn't report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries - Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children' posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House 'spending report' sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause. ... It's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? Oh that's right, they don't cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened 'today.' However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods - particularly the section that read as follows: While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being 'in the first quarter,' and simply replaced it with 'all $400,000' (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries.

Contradiction

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for 'caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.' The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an 'Emerging Leaders' program focused 'on helping veterans start small businesses after military life.' And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didn't report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries - Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children' posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House 'spending report' sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause. ... It's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? Oh that's right, they don't cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened 'today.' However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods - particularly the section that read as follows: While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being 'in the first quarter,' and simply replaced it with 'all $400,000' (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries.

Contradiction

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for 'caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.' The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an 'Emerging Leaders' program focused 'on helping veterans start small businesses after military life.' And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didn't report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries - Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, 'Uncle Sam's Misguided Children' posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House 'spending report' sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: 'Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!' Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause. ... It's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? Oh that's right, they don't cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened 'today.' However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods - particularly the section that read as follows: While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being 'in the first quarter,' and simply replaced it with 'all $400,000' (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.Recent Updates Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

A video shows a lobster writing a series of numbers with a pen.

Contradiction

In June 2019, a short video supposedly showing a lobster scrawling a series of numbers went viral on social media. One iteration posted to Twitter garnered more than 3.5 million views, while another posting on Facebook racked up an additional 4.5 million views. The video was originally posted on the Chinese short-video app Douyin, a sister application to the internationally popular TikTok. While we have been unable to locate the original video on Douyin, what appears to be a copy of it was posted to Facebook by You Shan: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e)); The majority of this video's millions of viewers seemed to realize this fishy footage didn't actually show a literate lobster, but others were puzzled. Have lobsters really learned to write numbers? In short, no. As many netizens have already pointed out, the top half of the pen cannot be seen in this video. It's likely that whoever created this video was controlling the pen from outside the camera frame. While a second sketcher may certainly explain how the above-displayed video was created, another video supposedly showing a lobster writing (this time with the full pen in frame) was also going around on social media: Again, can lobsters write numbers? In short, still no. American audiences are likely familiar with the ability to use filters, templates, and other editing gimmicks on apps such as Snapchat and Instagram. For instance, a 'baby filter' on Instagram allows users to make themselves (or President Trump) appear much, much younger. The above-displayed video was created with the 龙虾写字 (lobster writing) template on the Chinese app 趣推 (Fun Push). The website Baidu provides a tutorial on how to use this template. The website also includes a few screenshots showing this same lobster writing a variety of words, numbers and phrases (translated and edited for clarity): The crayfish writing video seen on the app does not exist in real life. If you want to make this video, you need to use the fun app. Let's take a look at the production process ... 1. Open the Fun Push homepage and click on 'View All' to the right of 'Daily Update.' 2. Open the 'Daily Update' interface and find the 'Lobster Writing' template and click on it. 3. Open the 'Lobster Writing' interface and click 'make.' 4. Open the production interface, click on the text in the screen, then edit the new text, then click 'Finish.' These viral videos don't actually show lobsters (or crayfish) using a writing tool to scrawl words and numbers on a sheet of paper. These videos either feature a simple video trick (doing something off-screen to make something appear to happen on-screen) or a pre-made, digital editing template.

In short, no. As many netizens have already pointed out, the top half of the pen cannot be seen in this video. It's likely that whoever created this video was controlling the pen from outside the camera frame. While a second sketcher may certainly explain how the above-displayed video was created, another video supposedly showing a lobster writing (this time with the full pen in frame) was also going around on social media: Again, can lobsters write numbers? In short, still no. American audiences are likely familiar with the ability to use filters, templates, and other editing gimmicks on apps such as Snapchat and Instagram. For instance, a 'baby filter' on Instagram allows users to make themselves (or President Trump) appear much, much younger. The above-displayed video was created with the 龙虾写字 (lobster writing) template on the Chinese app 趣推 (Fun Push). The website Baidu provides a tutorial on how to use this template. The website also includes a few screenshots showing this same lobster writing a variety of words, numbers and phrases (translated and edited for clarity): The crayfish writing video seen on the app does not exist in real life. If you want to make this video, you need to use the fun app. Let's take a look at the production process ... 1. Open the Fun Push homepage and click on 'View All' to the right of 'Daily Update.' 2. Open the 'Daily Update' interface and find the 'Lobster Writing' template and click on it. 3. Open the 'Lobster Writing' interface and click 'make.' 4. Open the production interface, click on the text in the screen, then edit the new text, then click 'Finish.' These viral videos don't actually show lobsters (or crayfish) using a writing tool to scrawl words and numbers on a sheet of paper. These videos either feature a simple video trick (doing something off-screen to make something appear to happen on-screen) or a pre-made, digital editing template.

Hillary Clinton suggested during a 2013 speech that she would like to see Donald Trump run for President.

Contradiction

On 17 October 2016, the now-defunct website The Rightists published an article positing that Hillary Clinton said during a 2013 speech she wanted to see someone like Donald Trump to run for President: The Rightest was a 'hybrid' website that published a mixture of real and fake news: TheRightists.com is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true! In this case, the 'news' portion of the article was a speech Clinton purportedly delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013. While an excerpt of the speech was published by Wikileaks, the Clinton campaign has refused to verify the documents: MALE ATTENDEE: My question is, as entrepreneurs, we risk a lot. And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don't need the job than have the job? SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it's important to have people with those experiences. And especially now, because many of you in this room are on the cutting edge of technology or health care or some other segment of the economy, so you are people who look over the horizon. And coming into public life and bringing that perspective as well as the success and the insulation that success gives you could really help in a lot of our political situations right now. The Rightists used the above-quoted speech as the basis of their article, but then they added several fake quotes in relation to Donald Trump: And then she just had to go on. 'In fact, when you say businessmen and women, I can't help but think of a particular one that I would just love to see running for the presidency at some point in the future,' Clinton added. 'I don't know what it is exactly about him, I can't quite put my finger on it, but my instinct is almost never wrong. And it's telling me that Donald Trump would be very successful if he were to venture into politics in the future.' Asked to elaborate on her statement, the former Secretary of State argued that she thinks that businessmen 'can't be bought' and that they're 'very honest.' 'And I think that goes especially for Donald Trump, whose successful projects and business ventures have made him synonymous with big business and, more importantly, creating thousands of jobs. I also think he understands the philanthropic and charitable side of things quite well, which is a crucial skill for any politician,' she praised her current counter-candidate. The above-displayed quotes, however, do not appear in the transcript of Clinton's alleged 2013 Goldman Sachs speech. These are fictional quotes created by a 'hybrid' web site that publishes a mixture of fake news and satire. In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

Hillary Clinton suggested during a 2013 speech that she would like to see Donald Trump run for President.

Contradiction

On 17 October 2016, the now-defunct website The Rightists published an article positing that Hillary Clinton said during a 2013 speech she wanted to see someone like Donald Trump to run for President: The Rightest was a 'hybrid' website that published a mixture of real and fake news: TheRightists.com is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true! In this case, the 'news' portion of the article was a speech Clinton purportedly delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013. While an excerpt of the speech was published by Wikileaks, the Clinton campaign has refused to verify the documents: MALE ATTENDEE: My question is, as entrepreneurs, we risk a lot. And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don't need the job than have the job? SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it's important to have people with those experiences. And especially now, because many of you in this room are on the cutting edge of technology or health care or some other segment of the economy, so you are people who look over the horizon. And coming into public life and bringing that perspective as well as the success and the insulation that success gives you could really help in a lot of our political situations right now. The Rightists used the above-quoted speech as the basis of their article, but then they added several fake quotes in relation to Donald Trump: And then she just had to go on. 'In fact, when you say businessmen and women, I can't help but think of a particular one that I would just love to see running for the presidency at some point in the future,' Clinton added. 'I don't know what it is exactly about him, I can't quite put my finger on it, but my instinct is almost never wrong. And it's telling me that Donald Trump would be very successful if he were to venture into politics in the future.' Asked to elaborate on her statement, the former Secretary of State argued that she thinks that businessmen 'can't be bought' and that they're 'very honest.' 'And I think that goes especially for Donald Trump, whose successful projects and business ventures have made him synonymous with big business and, more importantly, creating thousands of jobs. I also think he understands the philanthropic and charitable side of things quite well, which is a crucial skill for any politician,' she praised her current counter-candidate. The above-displayed quotes, however, do not appear in the transcript of Clinton's alleged 2013 Goldman Sachs speech. These are fictional quotes created by a 'hybrid' web site that publishes a mixture of fake news and satire. In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

Hillary Clinton suggested during a 2013 speech that she would like to see Donald Trump run for President.

Contradiction

On 17 October 2016, the now-defunct website The Rightists published an article positing that Hillary Clinton said during a 2013 speech she wanted to see someone like Donald Trump to run for President: The Rightest was a 'hybrid' website that published a mixture of real and fake news: TheRightists.com is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true! In this case, the 'news' portion of the article was a speech Clinton purportedly delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013. While an excerpt of the speech was published by Wikileaks, the Clinton campaign has refused to verify the documents: MALE ATTENDEE: My question is, as entrepreneurs, we risk a lot. And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don't need the job than have the job? SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it's important to have people with those experiences. And especially now, because many of you in this room are on the cutting edge of technology or health care or some other segment of the economy, so you are people who look over the horizon. And coming into public life and bringing that perspective as well as the success and the insulation that success gives you could really help in a lot of our political situations right now. The Rightists used the above-quoted speech as the basis of their article, but then they added several fake quotes in relation to Donald Trump: And then she just had to go on. 'In fact, when you say businessmen and women, I can't help but think of a particular one that I would just love to see running for the presidency at some point in the future,' Clinton added. 'I don't know what it is exactly about him, I can't quite put my finger on it, but my instinct is almost never wrong. And it's telling me that Donald Trump would be very successful if he were to venture into politics in the future.' Asked to elaborate on her statement, the former Secretary of State argued that she thinks that businessmen 'can't be bought' and that they're 'very honest.' 'And I think that goes especially for Donald Trump, whose successful projects and business ventures have made him synonymous with big business and, more importantly, creating thousands of jobs. I also think he understands the philanthropic and charitable side of things quite well, which is a crucial skill for any politician,' she praised her current counter-candidate. The above-displayed quotes, however, do not appear in the transcript of Clinton's alleged 2013 Goldman Sachs speech. These are fictional quotes created by a 'hybrid' web site that publishes a mixture of fake news and satire. In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

In summation, WikiLeaks published an excerpt allegedly from a speech Hillary Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which the former secretary of state said that more businessmen should run for office. Clinton did not, however, specifically mention Donald Trump in that speech.

Bing.com confirmed that China was planning to invade the United States.

Contradiction

Beginning in December 2020, conspiracy theorists published TikTok videos that warned the Microsoft search engine, Bing.com, had confirmed an upcoming and successful Chinese invasion of the United States. In the videos, TikTok users directed viewers to visit Bing.com to type in 'China invade USA' (without quotes). The videos showed a snippet result on the right-hand side called 'Invasion of the U.S. Mainland,' apparently scheduled for 2020-2025 with a 'Red Chinese victory.' It's true that entering the text 'China invade USA' (without quotes) on Bing.com will bring up the result seen in the image above. However, the snippet on the right titled 'Invasion of the U.S. Mainland' was not a confirmation or prediction of war by Bing.com, nor was it a news story. The embedded content was nothing more than a search engine results preview of fiction writing from the Future section of the website Fandom.com. The fictional story began with an August 2020 invasion of Alaska: Invasion of Alaska and Canada The chaotic situation in the US mainland after the surprise Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack provided excellent opportunities for further Chinese expansionism, US military forces is in disarray with the whole US power grid knocked out American strategic nuclear forces were paralyzed leaving the whole US mainland open to invasion. China saw Alaska as a stepping stone for its conquest of the US with its limitless supply of raw materials, its manufactured goods, and as a protective staging ground against Canada and the rest of the United States. China invaded Alaska outright in August 2020. Russia took Attu Island. After five months of fighting, the puppet state of Democratic State of Alaska was established in December 2020, with an Eskimo rebel chieftain Pung Hunni, installed as its puppet President. Militarily too paralyzed to challenge China directly, America send in irregular forces to continue resistance. We previously reported on a very similar story that claimed Chinese troops were amassed in Canada and were planning to invade the U.S. That rumor was also false. The fictional story from Fandom.com claimed that 30,000,000 American civilians would die in an upcoming war, and that 7,350,000 U.S. military members would die. It also said that Chinese leaders would join forces with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some 5,000,000 soldiers were said to die China's side of the war from 2020-2025. Again, all of this was a work of fiction. The story ended without the Chinese being able to claim a 'decisive victory': By 2025 China had occupied much of Midwest and the west coast of the former United States, but the US provisional central government and military had successfully retreated to the eastern interior to continue their resistance, while the American guerrillas remained in control of base areas in the Appalachian mountains . In the occupied areas, Chinese control was mainly limited to highways as well as railroads and major cities . They did not have a major military or administrative presence in the vast American countryside, where American guerrillas roamed freely. This stalemate situation made a decisive victory seem difficult to the Chinese. In short, 'China invade USA' was not a special way to find top secret information, nor was it a key to find out what will happen in the future.

In short, 'China invade USA' was not a special way to find top secret information, nor was it a key to find out what will happen in the future.

Bing.com confirmed that China was planning to invade the United States.

Contradiction

Beginning in December 2020, conspiracy theorists published TikTok videos that warned the Microsoft search engine, Bing.com, had confirmed an upcoming and successful Chinese invasion of the United States. In the videos, TikTok users directed viewers to visit Bing.com to type in 'China invade USA' (without quotes). The videos showed a snippet result on the right-hand side called 'Invasion of the U.S. Mainland,' apparently scheduled for 2020-2025 with a 'Red Chinese victory.' It's true that entering the text 'China invade USA' (without quotes) on Bing.com will bring up the result seen in the image above. However, the snippet on the right titled 'Invasion of the U.S. Mainland' was not a confirmation or prediction of war by Bing.com, nor was it a news story. The embedded content was nothing more than a search engine results preview of fiction writing from the Future section of the website Fandom.com. The fictional story began with an August 2020 invasion of Alaska: Invasion of Alaska and Canada The chaotic situation in the US mainland after the surprise Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack provided excellent opportunities for further Chinese expansionism, US military forces is in disarray with the whole US power grid knocked out American strategic nuclear forces were paralyzed leaving the whole US mainland open to invasion. China saw Alaska as a stepping stone for its conquest of the US with its limitless supply of raw materials, its manufactured goods, and as a protective staging ground against Canada and the rest of the United States. China invaded Alaska outright in August 2020. Russia took Attu Island. After five months of fighting, the puppet state of Democratic State of Alaska was established in December 2020, with an Eskimo rebel chieftain Pung Hunni, installed as its puppet President. Militarily too paralyzed to challenge China directly, America send in irregular forces to continue resistance. We previously reported on a very similar story that claimed Chinese troops were amassed in Canada and were planning to invade the U.S. That rumor was also false. The fictional story from Fandom.com claimed that 30,000,000 American civilians would die in an upcoming war, and that 7,350,000 U.S. military members would die. It also said that Chinese leaders would join forces with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some 5,000,000 soldiers were said to die China's side of the war from 2020-2025. Again, all of this was a work of fiction. The story ended without the Chinese being able to claim a 'decisive victory': By 2025 China had occupied much of Midwest and the west coast of the former United States, but the US provisional central government and military had successfully retreated to the eastern interior to continue their resistance, while the American guerrillas remained in control of base areas in the Appalachian mountains . In the occupied areas, Chinese control was mainly limited to highways as well as railroads and major cities . They did not have a major military or administrative presence in the vast American countryside, where American guerrillas roamed freely. This stalemate situation made a decisive victory seem difficult to the Chinese. In short, 'China invade USA' was not a special way to find top secret information, nor was it a key to find out what will happen in the future.

In short, 'China invade USA' was not a special way to find top secret information, nor was it a key to find out what will happen in the future.

A photograph shows former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin wearing a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat.

Contradiction

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. In May 2020, Minneapolis resident George Floyd died after a police officer identified in news reports as Derek Chauvin pinned Floyd down, kneeled on his neck, and choked him. The incident, which was captured on a bystander's now-viral video, stirred anger; and citizens once again took to the streets to protest police violence and racial injustice. Chavin was fired on May 26 along with three other officers. As the outrage swirled, so did online rumors. Along with a video allegedly showing Chauvin onstage at a Trump campaign rally (fact-checked here), social media users shared a photograph supposedly showing Chauvin in a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat while picking a blackberry out of a fruit bowl: But the man in the 'Make Whites Great Again' hat above is not Chauvin. This photograph actually shows Jonathan Riches, a supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump who is also a former federal inmate and an online troll who has garnered a reputation for filing lawsuits. Riches confirmed to us that he's the person in this photograph, but claimed that the 'Make Whites Great Again' slogan on this hat was photoshopped: Hat is fake. Photocopied / photoshopped for sure.. I wear MAGA hats [...] People don't like me because of my Trump political activism. In return they set up fake profiles of me, memes, fake screen shots etc. In return I re-post to my friends what these people do to me. Been doing it for years to me [...] It's my face in the photo. Someone doctored or edited [the hat] and spread it as if I am the cop. Now I'm being harassed. We examined the photograph and see no obvious signs of digital editing. Riches also could not produce the original, undoctored photograph. Furthermore, a second photograph of Riches in a 'Make Whites Great Again' was posted to a Facebook page in support of the two men charged in the killing of a black jogger in Georgia. Riches claimed that this image was posted by a 'fake profile.' However, Riches shared a screenshot of this post to his Facebook page (which he has since deleted) and commented that he couldn't believe 'people can get so triggered by a red hat.' At that time, Riches made no mention that the hat was fake. Lastly, screenshots show that the image of Riches in a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat while pulling a blackberry from a bowl of fruit appears to have been originally shared to the Facebook page of Christina Caldwell, who claims to be Riches' grandmother, along with the message: 'The blacker the berry the sweeter the juice.' That post, too, has been deleted, but Caldwell confirmed in a separate post that it was Riches in the photo. Caldwell made no mention of the hat being fake. In sum, the photograph supposedly showing ex-Minneapolis police officer Chauvin in a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat actually shows Riches. While the evidence appears to show that this hat is genuine, Riches claims that the 'Make Whites Great Again' slogan was photoshopped. Recent Updates Updated [27 May 2020]: Article updated with a statement from Jonathan Riches claiming that the 'Make Whites Great Again' slogan on this hat was doctored.

In sum, the photograph supposedly showing ex-Minneapolis police officer Chauvin in a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat actually shows Riches. While the evidence appears to show that this hat is genuine, Riches claims that the 'Make Whites Great Again' slogan was photoshopped. Recent Updates Updated [27 May 2020]: Article updated with a statement from Jonathan Riches claiming that the 'Make Whites Great Again' slogan on this hat was doctored.

In September 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden directed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to stop providing healthcare benefits to veterans who are unvaccinated.

Contradiction

To combat the COVID-19 delta variant, U.S. President Joe Biden on Sept. 9, 2021, announced expansive vaccine and testing requirements that would impact tens of millions of Americans - including all federal workers and some private-sector and health care employees. The directive sparked questions among Snopes readers. Some questioned how, or to what extent, the president's plan would impact veterans who receive financial assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to cover medical expenses. Those inquiries, in particular, appeared to stem from an article on Delaware Ohio News that claimed the president instructed the VA to stop providing healthcare benefits to unvaccinated veterans as part of his push to encourage inoculations. That web page read: President Joe Biden has ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to withhold healthcare benefits from unvaccinated veterans as part of an aggressive new initiative to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning November 1st, any veteran seeking medical care at a VA facility must have had at least one shot of the vaccine to receive services under their medical benefits package. The executive order is one of several new rules to combat the Delta variant, including vaccine requirements for federal workers, large employers, and health care staff. Additionally, the article claimed Biden made these comments in a televised speech on Sept. 9: 'We promised to take care of you in return for your service to this country. You promised us your life,' the president allegedly said. '[Sit] down and get the dang shot. Do what we tell you to do and continue your service to this great country. Or go without your healthcare benefits. The choice is yours.' However, the article was not a factual recounting of events. While it was true Biden outlined sweeping vaccine requirements in a speech on Sept. 9, those remarks did not include the above-written alleged quote nor any other reference to veterans' benefits, according to C-SPAN's recording of the event and the official White House transcript. Additionally, we found no evidence for the claim in his Sept. 9 presidential order requiring vaccinations for all federal workers. No federal document substantiated the theory that the White House directed the VA to change its system for awarding healthcare benefits based on recipients' vaccination status. Also, while the assertion would be eminently newsworthy if it was factual, no reputable news outlet had reported on the alleged provision affecting veterans. In sum, the article supposedly reporting the change was not genuine. Its source, the Delaware Ohio News, describes its output as being fake or satirical in nature, as follows: 'All stories herein are parodies (satire, fiction, fake, not real) of people and/or actual events. All names are made up (unless used in a parody of public figures) and any similarity is purely coincidental.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. As for Biden's vaccine push, few details about the new requirements were known as of this writing. (See The Associated Press' summary of the requirements, and who they could impact, based on Biden's Sept. 9 remarks here.) Jeffrey Zients, the White House' coronavirus response coordinator, told that news outlet that the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration would draft specifics 'over the coming weeks.' Meanwhile, Biden critics claimed his announcement violated individuals' or businesses' rights and were supposedly preparing lawsuits to try to block the new requirements. For example, see the below-displayed email from the Republican National Committee to solicit donations from supporters supposedly to help fund the anti-vaccination effort. 'Stop the vaccine mandate,' read the email, obtained by Snopes. 'We will sue Biden to end his authoritarian vaccine mandate.'

In sum, the article supposedly reporting the change was not genuine. Its source, the Delaware Ohio News, describes its output as being fake or satirical in nature, as follows: 'All stories herein are parodies (satire, fiction, fake, not real) of people and/or actual events. All names are made up (unless used in a parody of public figures) and any similarity is purely coincidental.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. As for Biden's vaccine push, few details about the new requirements were known as of this writing. (See The Associated Press' summary of the requirements, and who they could impact, based on Biden's Sept. 9 remarks here.) Jeffrey Zients, the White House' coronavirus response coordinator, told that news outlet that the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration would draft specifics 'over the coming weeks.' Meanwhile, Biden critics claimed his announcement violated individuals' or businesses' rights and were supposedly preparing lawsuits to try to block the new requirements. For example, see the below-displayed email from the Republican National Committee to solicit donations from supporters supposedly to help fund the anti-vaccination effort. 'Stop the vaccine mandate,' read the email, obtained by Snopes. 'We will sue Biden to end his authoritarian vaccine mandate.'

In September 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden directed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to stop providing healthcare benefits to veterans who are unvaccinated.

Contradiction

To combat the COVID-19 delta variant, U.S. President Joe Biden on Sept. 9, 2021, announced expansive vaccine and testing requirements that would impact tens of millions of Americans - including all federal workers and some private-sector and health care employees. The directive sparked questions among Snopes readers. Some questioned how, or to what extent, the president's plan would impact veterans who receive financial assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to cover medical expenses. Those inquiries, in particular, appeared to stem from an article on Delaware Ohio News that claimed the president instructed the VA to stop providing healthcare benefits to unvaccinated veterans as part of his push to encourage inoculations. That web page read: President Joe Biden has ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to withhold healthcare benefits from unvaccinated veterans as part of an aggressive new initiative to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning November 1st, any veteran seeking medical care at a VA facility must have had at least one shot of the vaccine to receive services under their medical benefits package. The executive order is one of several new rules to combat the Delta variant, including vaccine requirements for federal workers, large employers, and health care staff. Additionally, the article claimed Biden made these comments in a televised speech on Sept. 9: 'We promised to take care of you in return for your service to this country. You promised us your life,' the president allegedly said. '[Sit] down and get the dang shot. Do what we tell you to do and continue your service to this great country. Or go without your healthcare benefits. The choice is yours.' However, the article was not a factual recounting of events. While it was true Biden outlined sweeping vaccine requirements in a speech on Sept. 9, those remarks did not include the above-written alleged quote nor any other reference to veterans' benefits, according to C-SPAN's recording of the event and the official White House transcript. Additionally, we found no evidence for the claim in his Sept. 9 presidential order requiring vaccinations for all federal workers. No federal document substantiated the theory that the White House directed the VA to change its system for awarding healthcare benefits based on recipients' vaccination status. Also, while the assertion would be eminently newsworthy if it was factual, no reputable news outlet had reported on the alleged provision affecting veterans. In sum, the article supposedly reporting the change was not genuine. Its source, the Delaware Ohio News, describes its output as being fake or satirical in nature, as follows: 'All stories herein are parodies (satire, fiction, fake, not real) of people and/or actual events. All names are made up (unless used in a parody of public figures) and any similarity is purely coincidental.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. As for Biden's vaccine push, few details about the new requirements were known as of this writing. (See The Associated Press' summary of the requirements, and who they could impact, based on Biden's Sept. 9 remarks here.) Jeffrey Zients, the White House' coronavirus response coordinator, told that news outlet that the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration would draft specifics 'over the coming weeks.' Meanwhile, Biden critics claimed his announcement violated individuals' or businesses' rights and were supposedly preparing lawsuits to try to block the new requirements. For example, see the below-displayed email from the Republican National Committee to solicit donations from supporters supposedly to help fund the anti-vaccination effort. 'Stop the vaccine mandate,' read the email, obtained by Snopes. 'We will sue Biden to end his authoritarian vaccine mandate.'

In sum, the article supposedly reporting the change was not genuine. Its source, the Delaware Ohio News, describes its output as being fake or satirical in nature, as follows: 'All stories herein are parodies (satire, fiction, fake, not real) of people and/or actual events. All names are made up (unless used in a parody of public figures) and any similarity is purely coincidental.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. As for Biden's vaccine push, few details about the new requirements were known as of this writing. (See The Associated Press' summary of the requirements, and who they could impact, based on Biden's Sept. 9 remarks here.) Jeffrey Zients, the White House' coronavirus response coordinator, told that news outlet that the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration would draft specifics 'over the coming weeks.' Meanwhile, Biden critics claimed his announcement violated individuals' or businesses' rights and were supposedly preparing lawsuits to try to block the new requirements. For example, see the below-displayed email from the Republican National Committee to solicit donations from supporters supposedly to help fund the anti-vaccination effort. 'Stop the vaccine mandate,' read the email, obtained by Snopes. 'We will sue Biden to end his authoritarian vaccine mandate.'

A photograph shows a group of sheep squeezing through a gate, despite no fence hemming them in.

Contradiction

A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite there being no fence is frequently shared as an example of 'the trap of thinking': A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... 'The Trap of thinking' However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there actually is a fence in the above-displayed image. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012: Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: Yes, there is definitely a fence.

A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite there being no fence is frequently shared as an example of 'the trap of thinking': A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... 'The Trap of thinking' However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there actually is a fence in the above-displayed image. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012: Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: Yes, there is definitely a fence.

A photograph shows a group of sheep squeezing through a gate, despite no fence hemming them in.

Contradiction

A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite there being no fence is frequently shared as an example of 'the trap of thinking': A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... 'The Trap of thinking' However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there actually is a fence in the above-displayed image. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012: Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: Yes, there is definitely a fence.

A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite there being no fence is frequently shared as an example of 'the trap of thinking': A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... 'The Trap of thinking' However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there actually is a fence in the above-displayed image. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012: Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: Yes, there is definitely a fence.

The comedian and actor Tim Allen wrote a lengthy Facebook post that attacked liberals and Democratic politicians and was shared widely in August 2019.

Contradiction

In August 2019, a curious Facebook post was shared widely among right-leaning users, including the musician and commentator Ted Nugent, which was purported to have been written by the actor and comedian Tim Allen. The post listed several musings and observations, some of them factually dubious, which criticized liberals and Democratic politicians. The standard version of the post began with 'Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020,' and several instances prefaced the post with a note that attributed the observations to Tim Allen: 'Tim Allen is credited with writing this. From: Tim Allen': Some readers understood this to mean that the well-known conservative actor and comedian Tim Allen had written the message, and we received several inquiries to that effect. No evidence exists that the comedian wrote the post, although one Facebook account that shared the post bore the comedian's name. As such, we rate this claim 'False.' On Aug. 25, a Facebook user who goes by the name 'Tim Allen,' and apparently residing in Virginia, posted the 'interesting points' message. He was among the first to share the list of observations during the final week of August when the post spread widely on the social network. Online political content has gone viral in the past in similar circumstances. In January 2019, a Tennessee Facebook user going by the name 'Steve Harvey' posted a message that praised U.S. President Donald Trump and criticized his opponents. The post spread rapidly when some users mistakenly believed it had been written by the popular comedian and talk show host of the same name. On Aug. 24, 2019, right-leaning musician and commentator Ted Nugent had also shared a version of the anti-Democrat post, which had by that time appeared online for several months, with occasional modifications along the way. Some of the musings included in the list were taken from pre-existing, free-standing memes or popular social media posts, such as the observation: 'We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil,' which had appeared as its own meme, as early as January 2019: The line that stated, 'And just like that they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections' appears to have been taken from pre-existing social media content that emerged as early as April 2019: And just like that they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections. pic.twitter.com/lHmzrvQNDw - THE STORM HAS COME! 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 #WALKAWAY NOW! (@UAmericanOrADem) April 22, 2019 In sum, no evidence exists that showed Hollywood actor and comedian Tim Allen had either created or shared the lengthy Facebook post that went viral in August 2019, and was incorrectly attributed to him.

In sum, no evidence exists that showed Hollywood actor and comedian Tim Allen had either created or shared the lengthy Facebook post that went viral in August 2019, and was incorrectly attributed to him.

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters condoned violence and looting during the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Contradiction

On April 20, 2021, various Russian government-funded websites and right-leaning U.S. news sites reported that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 'condoned the 1992 Los Angeles riots' that were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers caught on video beating Black motorist Rodney King. Examples of this claim included the headline 'Maxine Waters Condoned 1992 LA Riots, Defended Some Looting, Old Footage Shows,' from the Russian government-funded website Sputnik. A similar headline from the right-leaning Daily Caller website read, 'FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters Called LA Riots 'Acceptable,' Defended Some Looting.' We will explain below why these stories are misleading. In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters condoned violence and looting during the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Contradiction

On April 20, 2021, various Russian government-funded websites and right-leaning U.S. news sites reported that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 'condoned the 1992 Los Angeles riots' that were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers caught on video beating Black motorist Rodney King. Examples of this claim included the headline 'Maxine Waters Condoned 1992 LA Riots, Defended Some Looting, Old Footage Shows,' from the Russian government-funded website Sputnik. A similar headline from the right-leaning Daily Caller website read, 'FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters Called LA Riots 'Acceptable,' Defended Some Looting.' We will explain below why these stories are misleading. In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters condoned violence and looting during the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Contradiction

On April 20, 2021, various Russian government-funded websites and right-leaning U.S. news sites reported that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 'condoned the 1992 Los Angeles riots' that were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers caught on video beating Black motorist Rodney King. Examples of this claim included the headline 'Maxine Waters Condoned 1992 LA Riots, Defended Some Looting, Old Footage Shows,' from the Russian government-funded website Sputnik. A similar headline from the right-leaning Daily Caller website read, 'FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters Called LA Riots 'Acceptable,' Defended Some Looting.' We will explain below why these stories are misleading. In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters condoned violence and looting during the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Contradiction

On April 20, 2021, various Russian government-funded websites and right-leaning U.S. news sites reported that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 'condoned the 1992 Los Angeles riots' that were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers caught on video beating Black motorist Rodney King. Examples of this claim included the headline 'Maxine Waters Condoned 1992 LA Riots, Defended Some Looting, Old Footage Shows,' from the Russian government-funded website Sputnik. A similar headline from the right-leaning Daily Caller website read, 'FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters Called LA Riots 'Acceptable,' Defended Some Looting.' We will explain below why these stories are misleading. In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters condoned violence and looting during the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles.

Contradiction

On April 20, 2021, various Russian government-funded websites and right-leaning U.S. news sites reported that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 'condoned the 1992 Los Angeles riots' that were sparked by the acquittal of four L.A. police officers caught on video beating Black motorist Rodney King. Examples of this claim included the headline 'Maxine Waters Condoned 1992 LA Riots, Defended Some Looting, Old Footage Shows,' from the Russian government-funded website Sputnik. A similar headline from the right-leaning Daily Caller website read, 'FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters Called LA Riots 'Acceptable,' Defended Some Looting.' We will explain below why these stories are misleading. In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

In short, they take some of Waters' comments out of context to give the impression she condoned the violence and criminal acts committed during five days of civil unrest in L.A. in 1992, while leaving out other commentary by Waters that contradicts that framing. The nuance to the story is that Waters has condemned both violence and looting that took place during the civil unrest but also acknowledged that what happened in April 1992, starting in the community then known as South Central, was a response to legitimate and unaddressed grievances in the community that included depressed economic conditions and police abuse. What is the Context for these Stories? These stories and many like them took statements made by Waters in years past out of context to make it look like she was instigating violence. They were spun from other stories about comments made by Waters in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 17, 2021, which also decontextualized those comments to make it look like she was instigating violence. For background, here's what happened in 2021: Waters, who has long represented California's 43rd congressional district, was attending a rally on April 17, outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. A white Brooklyn Center police officer, Kim Potter, had shot and killed Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black resident, after a traffic stop on April 11. The Saturday night rally on April 17 was held during the days leading to the verdict in another Minnesota case that sparked racial justice protests across the country - the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Floyd's killing touched off massive civil rights demonstrations through the remainder of spring and summer 2020 nationwide. While there, Waters was asked what protesters should do if Chauvin was acquitted (he was ultimately convicted on April 20 on murder charges.) In response, Waters stated, in part, 'We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active. We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.' On April 19, various right-wing personalities took to Twitter, picking up that portion of Waters' statements as a reason to insist that Chauvin's trial should be declared a mistrial because by making those comments, Waters was supposedly 'threatening the jury' or inciting violence. As Vox explained, Waters' comments were 'exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically spotlighted' by partisan commentators. Nevertheless, these takes were widely reported by the news media, and the judge in Chauvin's trial, Peter Cahill, opined in court that the comment may give Chauvin's defense grounds to try and get the trial overturned on appeal. What Waters Said in Minnesota on April 17 As we previously reported, when Waters was asked on camera what she thought civil rights demonstrators should do if Chauvin were acquitted, she said they should 'stay in the street,' 'fight for justice,' and 'get more confrontational.' But there was more context to her remarks, and she didn't call for violence, nor did her words incite violence. The entirety of Waters' remarks can be heard in a 10-minute YouTube video made during the rally by the left-leaning news collective Unicorn Riot. She said she came from Washington, D.C., to Minnesota because she wanted to be with protesters to show them support. She spoke about police reform legislation and the need for protesters to stay in the streets to keep the pressure on in pursuit of social change for racial justice. Later in the interview, she stated: My message to young Black people is this. That we know that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. We know that oftentimes, young Black people are stopped, they are searched, they're not treated fairly, and they stand to lose their lives. And they've got to know that there are people who understand this, and who will stand with them, and who will fight for them. Who love them, and who tell them, 'we're not gonna stop until we get justice in this country.' Per local news, there weren't any reports of violence following the rally attended by Waters. As we previously reported, Waters responded to claims her comments were an incitement to violence in an interview with The Grio in which she described herself as 'nonviolent' and added, 'I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that's going on, I'm talking about speaking up. I'm talking about legislation. I'm talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.' The Civil Unrest of 1992 After Waters' remark at the April 17 rally received widespread attention, some outlets posted stories giving the impression that the 82-year-old congresswoman had a history of condoning violence, pointing to years-old commentary made by Waters about the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who beat a Black man named Rodney King. But these stories, again, took her remarks out of context and left out other comments she made in which she condemned violence and looting. For historical context, the region of Los Angeles formerly known as South Central, which was predominantly Black, erupted on April 29, 1992 with five days of fire and violence following the acquittal of all four LAPD officers. The beating of King, which resulted in skull fractures, broken bones and teeth and permanent brain damage, was captured on video and given to a local news station, where it was beamed into home nationwide. The officers who beat king were charged with excessive use of force. But the trial was moved to the predominantly white Ventura County city of Simi Valley, where the officers, Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind, and Laurence Powell, were ultimately acquitted. Dozens of people died in the outburst of anger and violence that followed, starting at the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues in South Central. Thousands of buildings were set ablaze, with Waters' own office catching fire and ending up gutted. People all over the country saw aerial news footage of white truck driver Reginald Denny being pulled from his vehicle and beaten in the street. (Denny survived after being rescued by members of the community who took him to a hospital.) Did Waters 'Condone' Violence and Looting? During this time, Waters did not condone violence - in fact, in a letter to constituents, which was later reprinted by the Los Angeles Times, she called for calm: Our anger and frustration must not drive us to the streets. We must use our minds and our God-given talents and our legacy of perseverance and struggle. We must fight our battles in the courtroom, and in the halls of power. We must organize and rally and protest. And, through it all, we will celebrate living- not dying. I wish we could make life better for everyone, today. I wish we all had jobs, and happy, loving experiences each day of our lives. I wish we had peace of mind. And, if I could, I would give it to you. Each day brings a new opportunity, a new possibility. I love you and will fight for you. I need you to stand with me to make this a better place. Let us get smart-it's time to chill! Although Sputnik quoted part of a news conference Waters had given in the early hours of the unrest, it left out the portion in which she stated she doesn't condone violence. During that event, Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the federal government to take legal action against the acquitted LAPD officers in an effort to calm the volatile situation: As I stand here, nine people are dead. My last count last, this morning, before I tried to get some sleep, was over 50-something fires, raging all over Los Angeles. The fires started in my district and one of the largest was right around the corner from my house. There are scores of injuries, and still anger and frustration, and people who plan on staying on the streets, and expressing their outrage and anger in any way they deem necessary. There are those who would like for me and others and all of us to tell people to go inside, to be peaceful, that they have to accept the verdict. I accept the responsibility of asking people not to endanger their lives. I am not asking people not to be angry. I am angry and I have a right to that anger, and the people out there have a right to that anger. We don't want anybody killed. None of us believe in violence. But there are some angry people in America and young Black males in my district are feeling at this moment, if they could not get a conviction with the Rodney King video available to the jurors, that there can be no justice in America. The Daily Caller quoted Waters from a May 10, 1992, story in the Los Angeles Times in which she spoke about an impoverished mother taking shoes for her children: On Michael Jackson's KABC radio talk show, Waters said: 'There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks.' Later, she told a Times reporter: 'One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.' But there was more nuance in that L.A. Times story. For example, Waters stated, 'Most reasonable human beings abhor violence, and I do, too. It is wrong to burn, to kill, to loot.' The Times went on to report: Waters readily admits that a criminal element participated in the rioting and believes that those who threw firebombs or physically harmed others should be dealt with quickly and harshly by the criminal justice system. At the same time, she calls the violence 'a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration,' and defends poor women who stole necessities for their families. In April 2007, the L.A. Times published a brief blurb discussing terminology: 'Was it a 'riot,' a 'disturbance' or a 'rebellion'? The Times quoted Waters representing the opinion that it should be called a 'rebellion.' 'If you call it a riot,' Waters is quoting as stating in 1992, 'it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.' Waters' comment on terminology reflects the fact that although the news media widely dubbed the events of April 1992 the 'L.A. riots,' many Angelenos consider it in political terms. Locally it's often called an 'uprising.' Does her comment mean she thinks the death and destruction from the unrest of 1992 were 'acceptable'? That interpretation contradicts her other remarks made at the time. It seems more likely that she was saying that widespread anger at the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest was justified. Another quote by Waters cited as evidence that she condoned violence was in fact a reference to nonviolent civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, riot is the voice of the unheard,' Waters was quoted as stating during a church service at First AME in May 1992, where the Times reported, 'the message was one of regret at the rioting but of continuing anger at underlying causes.' South Central L.A. and 1992 in Historical Context Brenda Stevenson, history professor and Nickoll Family Endowed Chair in History at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained in a phone interview with Snopes that at the time of the civil unrest in 1992, Los Angeles was largely segregated, with the majority of its Black residents living in what was then the neighborhood known as South Central. (It's now called South Los Angeles.) Black Angelenos were squeezed in a number of different ways, she said. There was high unemployment and underemployment in South Central. Jobs were leaving the area, and there was tension among residents and Korean American business owners, who ran a large number of shops in the area. Anger simmered over the 1991 murder of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old Black girl, by a Korean business owner who received a sentence only of probation and a $500 fine. Residents also lived with a lot of violence in the area because of street gang warfare and an out-of-control crack epidemic. There were also serial killers preying with impunity on Black women in the community at the time as well, Stevenson said. 'There was a sense that this part of the community was being left behind and nothing was being done to address its needs, 'Stevenson said. There was a lack of jobs, access to medical and educational resources, and good housing. 'Black people felt really trapped.' And on top of these factors, the community was targeted by police surveillance and police violence. So for some, the acquittal of the four officers who beat King was the proverbial final straw. 'Black people knew [police violence] happened all the time,' Stevenson said. 'They saw their loved ones come home all bruised up by the police or some policing agency. It's the rest of the world that continues to be in denial. They don't get treated that way, so they can't believe that other people get treated that way, and they think that if they do, they must have brought it on themselves.' Although there are camera phones everywhere now, at that time, the King video was significant, Stevenson said. For once, the world could see what the Black community had known. Even then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush said he was shocked by the footage, saying, 'There's no way in my view to explain it away. It was outrageous.' Stevenson interpreted Waters' comment to the L.A. Times about the mother taking shoes along with totality of all her other remarks, to mean that while the congresswoman condemns criminal behavior, she also condemned a system that failed to support families and that allowed women and their children to live in poverty. 'People like her and approve of her in her district for a reason,' Stevenson observed. 'She makes it clear she hears them and supports their desire to have a decent, equitable life in our society.'

Dr. Phil's divorce settlement has finally been revealed as $1 million.

Contradiction

Since at least February 2021, online advertisements have promised details on a divorce settlement for television psychologist Dr. Phil. One of the ads featured a picture of Phil McGraw and his wife, Robin McGraw. It read: 'Dr. Phil's Divorce Settlement Has Finally Been Revealed.' Based on the picture in the ad, it appeared to promise details about a divorce settlement between the couple. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Ninja Journalist website. The story's headline read: '13 Expensive Celebrity Divorce Settlements That Reveal What Really Happened.' However, it ended up featuring more than 50 couples. Dr. Phil's purported divorce settlement appeared on page 48: Dr. Phil McGraw & Debbie Higgins - Approx. $1 Million Dr. Phil had a failed marriage with his high school sweetheart Debbie Higgins, who McGraw divorced after three years. The split cost around $1 million as at that point he didn't have much. Higgins calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' But the original advertisement was misleading. The divorce story had nothing to do with his current wife, Robin McGraw, who was pictured in the ad. The two have been married since 1976. We previously reported on a similar claim about the pair. Instead, the Ninja Journalist story briefly focused on Phil McGraw's first marriage with Debbie Higgins. (She was later known as Debbie Higgins McCall. According to the Kansas City Star, she died in September 2014.) It's true that the couple were high school sweethearts. They were both 20 years old when they were married at a church in Kansas on Nov. 27, 1970. In 2002, the Kansas City Star interviewed McCall. However, she mentioned nothing of a divorce settlement: 'When I confronted him about his infidelities, he didn't deny these girls and told me that it had nothing to do with his feelings toward me, to grow up, that's the way it was in the world,' McCall said. The relationship ended when she left him in 1973 and moved back to Kansas City, she said. 'I understand that in any relationship there are two sides to the story,' she said. 'In my relationship with Phil, I have kept my side quiet for all these years because I couldn't see any good coming from sharing it.' McCall decided to talk to the Star after a Newsweek cover story featured a mention of her by Dr. Phil: McCall, who manages a liquor store in the Kansas City suburbs, sometimes calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' She had never spoken publicly about their four-year marriage, which she claims failed because he had a roving eye. In recent years friends advised her to 'call Oprah.' But, she said, she wasn't emotionally prepared to go public. McGraw mentioned the failed marriage in a recent Newsweek cover story: 'I was the big football player, and she was the cheerleader. This was just the next thing to do.' It just didn't work out, he said. We were unable to find any credible sources that had reported on Dr. Phil and his first wife having a divorce settlement. We also found no evidence of a $1 million figure tied to his first marriage (which ended in an annulment, not a divorce, according to Sophia Dembling and Lisa Gutierrez's 2004 book, 'The Making of Dr. Phil'). The only websites that appeared to publish this information were those that promote lengthy slideshow articles. For example, the same information was included in the same stories posted on Daily Sport X, Journalistate, and Ninja Journalist. This rumor may remind some readers about our debunking of several royal family stories. They also first appeared in online advertisements. One claim was about 'the truth' being 'revealed about the William and Kate affair rumors.' Another one claimed that Prince Harry had 'changed his mind about Meghan Markle.' Both were baseless and rated 'false.' In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Dr. Phil's divorce settlement has finally been revealed as $1 million.

Contradiction

Since at least February 2021, online advertisements have promised details on a divorce settlement for television psychologist Dr. Phil. One of the ads featured a picture of Phil McGraw and his wife, Robin McGraw. It read: 'Dr. Phil's Divorce Settlement Has Finally Been Revealed.' Based on the picture in the ad, it appeared to promise details about a divorce settlement between the couple. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Ninja Journalist website. The story's headline read: '13 Expensive Celebrity Divorce Settlements That Reveal What Really Happened.' However, it ended up featuring more than 50 couples. Dr. Phil's purported divorce settlement appeared on page 48: Dr. Phil McGraw & Debbie Higgins - Approx. $1 Million Dr. Phil had a failed marriage with his high school sweetheart Debbie Higgins, who McGraw divorced after three years. The split cost around $1 million as at that point he didn't have much. Higgins calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' But the original advertisement was misleading. The divorce story had nothing to do with his current wife, Robin McGraw, who was pictured in the ad. The two have been married since 1976. We previously reported on a similar claim about the pair. Instead, the Ninja Journalist story briefly focused on Phil McGraw's first marriage with Debbie Higgins. (She was later known as Debbie Higgins McCall. According to the Kansas City Star, she died in September 2014.) It's true that the couple were high school sweethearts. They were both 20 years old when they were married at a church in Kansas on Nov. 27, 1970. In 2002, the Kansas City Star interviewed McCall. However, she mentioned nothing of a divorce settlement: 'When I confronted him about his infidelities, he didn't deny these girls and told me that it had nothing to do with his feelings toward me, to grow up, that's the way it was in the world,' McCall said. The relationship ended when she left him in 1973 and moved back to Kansas City, she said. 'I understand that in any relationship there are two sides to the story,' she said. 'In my relationship with Phil, I have kept my side quiet for all these years because I couldn't see any good coming from sharing it.' McCall decided to talk to the Star after a Newsweek cover story featured a mention of her by Dr. Phil: McCall, who manages a liquor store in the Kansas City suburbs, sometimes calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' She had never spoken publicly about their four-year marriage, which she claims failed because he had a roving eye. In recent years friends advised her to 'call Oprah.' But, she said, she wasn't emotionally prepared to go public. McGraw mentioned the failed marriage in a recent Newsweek cover story: 'I was the big football player, and she was the cheerleader. This was just the next thing to do.' It just didn't work out, he said. We were unable to find any credible sources that had reported on Dr. Phil and his first wife having a divorce settlement. We also found no evidence of a $1 million figure tied to his first marriage (which ended in an annulment, not a divorce, according to Sophia Dembling and Lisa Gutierrez's 2004 book, 'The Making of Dr. Phil'). The only websites that appeared to publish this information were those that promote lengthy slideshow articles. For example, the same information was included in the same stories posted on Daily Sport X, Journalistate, and Ninja Journalist. This rumor may remind some readers about our debunking of several royal family stories. They also first appeared in online advertisements. One claim was about 'the truth' being 'revealed about the William and Kate affair rumors.' Another one claimed that Prince Harry had 'changed his mind about Meghan Markle.' Both were baseless and rated 'false.' In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Dr. Phil's divorce settlement has finally been revealed as $1 million.

Contradiction

Since at least February 2021, online advertisements have promised details on a divorce settlement for television psychologist Dr. Phil. One of the ads featured a picture of Phil McGraw and his wife, Robin McGraw. It read: 'Dr. Phil's Divorce Settlement Has Finally Been Revealed.' Based on the picture in the ad, it appeared to promise details about a divorce settlement between the couple. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Ninja Journalist website. The story's headline read: '13 Expensive Celebrity Divorce Settlements That Reveal What Really Happened.' However, it ended up featuring more than 50 couples. Dr. Phil's purported divorce settlement appeared on page 48: Dr. Phil McGraw & Debbie Higgins - Approx. $1 Million Dr. Phil had a failed marriage with his high school sweetheart Debbie Higgins, who McGraw divorced after three years. The split cost around $1 million as at that point he didn't have much. Higgins calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' But the original advertisement was misleading. The divorce story had nothing to do with his current wife, Robin McGraw, who was pictured in the ad. The two have been married since 1976. We previously reported on a similar claim about the pair. Instead, the Ninja Journalist story briefly focused on Phil McGraw's first marriage with Debbie Higgins. (She was later known as Debbie Higgins McCall. According to the Kansas City Star, she died in September 2014.) It's true that the couple were high school sweethearts. They were both 20 years old when they were married at a church in Kansas on Nov. 27, 1970. In 2002, the Kansas City Star interviewed McCall. However, she mentioned nothing of a divorce settlement: 'When I confronted him about his infidelities, he didn't deny these girls and told me that it had nothing to do with his feelings toward me, to grow up, that's the way it was in the world,' McCall said. The relationship ended when she left him in 1973 and moved back to Kansas City, she said. 'I understand that in any relationship there are two sides to the story,' she said. 'In my relationship with Phil, I have kept my side quiet for all these years because I couldn't see any good coming from sharing it.' McCall decided to talk to the Star after a Newsweek cover story featured a mention of her by Dr. Phil: McCall, who manages a liquor store in the Kansas City suburbs, sometimes calls herself the 'secret first wife of Dr. Phil.' She had never spoken publicly about their four-year marriage, which she claims failed because he had a roving eye. In recent years friends advised her to 'call Oprah.' But, she said, she wasn't emotionally prepared to go public. McGraw mentioned the failed marriage in a recent Newsweek cover story: 'I was the big football player, and she was the cheerleader. This was just the next thing to do.' It just didn't work out, he said. We were unable to find any credible sources that had reported on Dr. Phil and his first wife having a divorce settlement. We also found no evidence of a $1 million figure tied to his first marriage (which ended in an annulment, not a divorce, according to Sophia Dembling and Lisa Gutierrez's 2004 book, 'The Making of Dr. Phil'). The only websites that appeared to publish this information were those that promote lengthy slideshow articles. For example, the same information was included in the same stories posted on Daily Sport X, Journalistate, and Ninja Journalist. This rumor may remind some readers about our debunking of several royal family stories. They also first appeared in online advertisements. One claim was about 'the truth' being 'revealed about the William and Kate affair rumors.' Another one claimed that Prince Harry had 'changed his mind about Meghan Markle.' Both were baseless and rated 'false.' In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, Dr. Phil married Debbie Higgins in 1970 when they were both 20 years old. Their marriage ended in an annulment, not a divorce, in 1973. We found no evidence that supported the claim of a $1 million settlement. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

Video surveillance footage shows poll workers at Atlanta's State Farm Arena using suitcases to hide ballots from Republican observers on Nov. 3, 2020.

Contradiction

On Dec. 3, 2020, a committee of Georgia state legislators met to discuss potential changes to the state's election system after fewer than 13,000 votes separated Democratic nominee Joe Biden and U.S. President Donald Trump in the presidential election. The group, formally called the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, heard numerous testimonies from people alleging crimes at polling sites. Among those testifiers were attorneys advocating on behalf of the Trump campaign, including Rudy Giuliani. They showed the committee frames of surveillance footage supposedly showing a handful of poll workers illegally counting absentee and military ballots inside a banquet room of Atlanta's State Farm Arena on Election Day, Nov. 3, as part of a wide-ranging effort to delegitimize Biden's win. (A Trump-requested ballot recount in Atlanta's Fulton County concluded Dec. 4, when county elections officials certified results showing Biden the clear winner.) The presentation by the Trump attorneys was amplified by Fox News' Sean Hannity; The Epoch Times, a website perpetuating the Trump campaign's baseless allegations of voter fraud by nefariously marketing itself as a news operation; The Gateway Pundit, an online hub of conspiracies, and numerous social media accounts, including Trump's. 'Blockbuster testimony taking place right now in Georgia,' the president tweeted during the Georgia committee meeting. The surveillance footage showed an overhead view of the banquet room over the course of hours and, according to lawyer Jacki Pick, was evidence of Atlanta's Fulton County's flawed ballot-counting system that showed Biden the winner. Narrating the images beginning around 10:30 p.m. and citing testimonies from Republican volunteers who were observing the vote counting, Pick told legislators the following, according to a livestream of the committee meeting obtained by Snopes: There is a lady who has blonde braids who comes out to announce, 'We're going to stop counting. Everyone go home.' And, in fact, we see that. What happens is, everyone clears out, including the Republican observers and the press. But four people stay behind and continue counting and tabulating well into the night. [...] They will continue counting - unobserved, unsupervised, not in public view, as your statute requires - until about one in the morning. The reason we know this is because, when our Republican observers were forced to leave, they went to the central tabulation center, and they got word from a news crew that, in fact, counting had continued. In short, Pick alleged poll workers (one of whom The Gateway Pundit claimed to have identified) conspired together and waited for Republican observers and reporters to leave the room before counting some ballots, violating Georgia's statutes governing poll watchers' rights. Additionally, she pointed out frames showing 'the lady with the blonde braids' - whom she later identified as a spokesperson for Atlanta's Fulton County - placing a table in the banquet room, under which poll workers retrieved a container of ballots after the onlookers left. 'The same person who cleared the place out under the pretense that 'we're going to stop counting' is the person who put the table there,' the lawyer told Georgia senators. 'I saw four suitcases come out from underneath the table.' According to both the Fulton County Board of Elections and Georgia's secretary of state, however, the allegations were unfounded. On multiple occasions after Nov. 3, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said there was no evidence of systemic errors or fraud to change the outcome of the state's results in Biden's favor. 'Nothing we have learned from the independent monitor or our investigation have suggested any improper ballots were scanned,' the secretary of state office told Forbes. We'll unpack the details of officials' response to the State Farm Arena episode, specifically. The day after the testimony, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, said agency investigators watched the surveillance video in its entirety, and they did not notice suspicious or illegal activity. 'Shows normal ballot processing,' he tweeted. He retweeted a web page by LeadStories.com in which Frances Watson, chief investigator for the secretary of state, was quoted as saying the supposedly suspicious containers under the banquet room's table were not suitcases, but rather standard containers for transporting ballots. 'It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table,' Watson said. Sterling also told Lead Stories: 'If you look at the video tape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase looking things in, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them.' Before certifying Fulton County's voter tallies on Dec. 4, which was typically a mundane step in U.S. presidential elections before electors solidify the outcome of the popular vote through the Electoral College, the county's election director, Rick Barron, said no one told anyone (including the observers and reporters) to leave the banquet room on the night of Nov. 3, according to Atlanta's 11Alive. Rather, some poll workers had finished their shifts, and the staff was considering ceasing operations. 'I told them not to do that,' Barron said, per the news outlet. 'At about 11:15 [p.m.] they were fully scanning again, and once they were scanning, Carter Jones, the State Election Board monitor, he told me 11:42 or 11:52 [p.m.] that he arrived.' In other words, Barron alleged that a nonpartisan, state-designated monitor was present when poll workers were scanning ballots just before and after midnight. And after that, he said, an investigator with the secretary of state's office also monitored the ballot scanning. Barron said, per Atlanta 11Alive: What the video shows is that they have pulled out plastic bins from underneath the desks, those are bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners. They will cut those seals that are on those, open those up and pull the ballots out. They were still in the process of cleaning so they hadn't sealed those ballot boxes up, so they were able to just start right back up, normal processing that occurred there. Following the Senate committee meeting featuring Pick's testimony about the alleged 'suitcases,' Republican Georgia lawmakers announced that the state House's Governmental Affairs Committee will hold another hearing on the state's election system Dec. 10. 'Our committee will seek any credible evidence of fraud or wrong-doing and determine what, if any, legislative action may be necessary to preserve the sanctity of the ballot box,' a statement read. In sum, no evidence showed poll workers at the Atlanta site conspired together to hide one or more ballots from Republican observers. Additionally, elections officials said the footage did not show suitcases, but rather standard bins for transporting ballots.

In sum, no evidence showed poll workers at the Atlanta site conspired together to hide one or more ballots from Republican observers. Additionally, elections officials said the footage did not show suitcases, but rather standard bins for transporting ballots.

Video surveillance footage shows poll workers at Atlanta's State Farm Arena using suitcases to hide ballots from Republican observers on Nov. 3, 2020.

Contradiction

On Dec. 3, 2020, a committee of Georgia state legislators met to discuss potential changes to the state's election system after fewer than 13,000 votes separated Democratic nominee Joe Biden and U.S. President Donald Trump in the presidential election. The group, formally called the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, heard numerous testimonies from people alleging crimes at polling sites. Among those testifiers were attorneys advocating on behalf of the Trump campaign, including Rudy Giuliani. They showed the committee frames of surveillance footage supposedly showing a handful of poll workers illegally counting absentee and military ballots inside a banquet room of Atlanta's State Farm Arena on Election Day, Nov. 3, as part of a wide-ranging effort to delegitimize Biden's win. (A Trump-requested ballot recount in Atlanta's Fulton County concluded Dec. 4, when county elections officials certified results showing Biden the clear winner.) The presentation by the Trump attorneys was amplified by Fox News' Sean Hannity; The Epoch Times, a website perpetuating the Trump campaign's baseless allegations of voter fraud by nefariously marketing itself as a news operation; The Gateway Pundit, an online hub of conspiracies, and numerous social media accounts, including Trump's. 'Blockbuster testimony taking place right now in Georgia,' the president tweeted during the Georgia committee meeting. The surveillance footage showed an overhead view of the banquet room over the course of hours and, according to lawyer Jacki Pick, was evidence of Atlanta's Fulton County's flawed ballot-counting system that showed Biden the winner. Narrating the images beginning around 10:30 p.m. and citing testimonies from Republican volunteers who were observing the vote counting, Pick told legislators the following, according to a livestream of the committee meeting obtained by Snopes: There is a lady who has blonde braids who comes out to announce, 'We're going to stop counting. Everyone go home.' And, in fact, we see that. What happens is, everyone clears out, including the Republican observers and the press. But four people stay behind and continue counting and tabulating well into the night. [...] They will continue counting - unobserved, unsupervised, not in public view, as your statute requires - until about one in the morning. The reason we know this is because, when our Republican observers were forced to leave, they went to the central tabulation center, and they got word from a news crew that, in fact, counting had continued. In short, Pick alleged poll workers (one of whom The Gateway Pundit claimed to have identified) conspired together and waited for Republican observers and reporters to leave the room before counting some ballots, violating Georgia's statutes governing poll watchers' rights. Additionally, she pointed out frames showing 'the lady with the blonde braids' - whom she later identified as a spokesperson for Atlanta's Fulton County - placing a table in the banquet room, under which poll workers retrieved a container of ballots after the onlookers left. 'The same person who cleared the place out under the pretense that 'we're going to stop counting' is the person who put the table there,' the lawyer told Georgia senators. 'I saw four suitcases come out from underneath the table.' According to both the Fulton County Board of Elections and Georgia's secretary of state, however, the allegations were unfounded. On multiple occasions after Nov. 3, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said there was no evidence of systemic errors or fraud to change the outcome of the state's results in Biden's favor. 'Nothing we have learned from the independent monitor or our investigation have suggested any improper ballots were scanned,' the secretary of state office told Forbes. We'll unpack the details of officials' response to the State Farm Arena episode, specifically. The day after the testimony, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, said agency investigators watched the surveillance video in its entirety, and they did not notice suspicious or illegal activity. 'Shows normal ballot processing,' he tweeted. He retweeted a web page by LeadStories.com in which Frances Watson, chief investigator for the secretary of state, was quoted as saying the supposedly suspicious containers under the banquet room's table were not suitcases, but rather standard containers for transporting ballots. 'It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table,' Watson said. Sterling also told Lead Stories: 'If you look at the video tape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase looking things in, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them.' Before certifying Fulton County's voter tallies on Dec. 4, which was typically a mundane step in U.S. presidential elections before electors solidify the outcome of the popular vote through the Electoral College, the county's election director, Rick Barron, said no one told anyone (including the observers and reporters) to leave the banquet room on the night of Nov. 3, according to Atlanta's 11Alive. Rather, some poll workers had finished their shifts, and the staff was considering ceasing operations. 'I told them not to do that,' Barron said, per the news outlet. 'At about 11:15 [p.m.] they were fully scanning again, and once they were scanning, Carter Jones, the State Election Board monitor, he told me 11:42 or 11:52 [p.m.] that he arrived.' In other words, Barron alleged that a nonpartisan, state-designated monitor was present when poll workers were scanning ballots just before and after midnight. And after that, he said, an investigator with the secretary of state's office also monitored the ballot scanning. Barron said, per Atlanta 11Alive: What the video shows is that they have pulled out plastic bins from underneath the desks, those are bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners. They will cut those seals that are on those, open those up and pull the ballots out. They were still in the process of cleaning so they hadn't sealed those ballot boxes up, so they were able to just start right back up, normal processing that occurred there. Following the Senate committee meeting featuring Pick's testimony about the alleged 'suitcases,' Republican Georgia lawmakers announced that the state House's Governmental Affairs Committee will hold another hearing on the state's election system Dec. 10. 'Our committee will seek any credible evidence of fraud or wrong-doing and determine what, if any, legislative action may be necessary to preserve the sanctity of the ballot box,' a statement read. In sum, no evidence showed poll workers at the Atlanta site conspired together to hide one or more ballots from Republican observers. Additionally, elections officials said the footage did not show suitcases, but rather standard bins for transporting ballots.

In sum, no evidence showed poll workers at the Atlanta site conspired together to hide one or more ballots from Republican observers. Additionally, elections officials said the footage did not show suitcases, but rather standard bins for transporting ballots.

The intelligence community 'secretly eliminated' a requirement that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, allowing the complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine to be filed.

Contradiction

In September 2019, whistleblower allegations that U.S. President Donald Trump held back military aid to Ukraine in an effort to obtain damaging information on a political rival led to an impeachment inquiry and an ongoing scandal. It wouldn't be the 2010s if the fallout didn't include a conspiracy theory circulating in the right-wing media ecosystem. In this case, the conspiracy theory was given a major platform in the form of a tweet by Trump that his supporters widely shared: WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019 The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the 'deep state' conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump. The Federalist story implied that the intelligence community changed existing rules so that the 'anti-Trump complaint' could be filed on Aug. 12 using secondhand information. 'Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,' The Federalist reported. The Federalist story included purported screenshots of previous and current versions of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form. The current form allows the whistleblower to check a box indicating that the person either learned of the information firsthand or from others, whereas the previous form contained the following language:But as Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown above doesn't say there was a 'requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.' The law has never required them to do so. Sanchez pointed out that the form pictured above contains a 'description of the Inspector General's (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim.' It does not say, Sanchez continued, 'that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more.' The Intelligence Community Inspector General's Office (ICIG) was forced to issue a statement on Sept. 30 correcting the record. The statement read, in part: The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant - or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees - need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower's lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations. In other words, the entire premise of The Federalist story is wrong. No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress. Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a 'shameless legal bluff.' 'No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,' Devine told us. 'Not even the president can change that unilaterally.' So how did the claim come about? It's true that the wording on an explanatory form for whistleblowers was changed, but the rules were not. The ICIG's statement notes that the wording was revised because 'certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.' Devine added that government whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing based on hearsay are still valuable resources in ferreting out government waste, corruption, and wrongdoing. 'If we restricted all credible government investigations to those with whistleblowers who have firsthand information, we'd cancel out 90% of law enforcement activity,' Devine said. 'Whistleblower investigations are routinely based on hearsay.' The ICIG's Sept. 30 statement additionally noted that the whistleblower's complaint did not contain only secondhand, 'unsubstantiated assertions.' The whistleblower 'checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, 'I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved'; and the second box stated that, 'Other employees have told me about events or records involved.'' In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

The intelligence community 'secretly eliminated' a requirement that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, allowing the complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine to be filed.

Contradiction

In September 2019, whistleblower allegations that U.S. President Donald Trump held back military aid to Ukraine in an effort to obtain damaging information on a political rival led to an impeachment inquiry and an ongoing scandal. It wouldn't be the 2010s if the fallout didn't include a conspiracy theory circulating in the right-wing media ecosystem. In this case, the conspiracy theory was given a major platform in the form of a tweet by Trump that his supporters widely shared: WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019 The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the 'deep state' conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump. The Federalist story implied that the intelligence community changed existing rules so that the 'anti-Trump complaint' could be filed on Aug. 12 using secondhand information. 'Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,' The Federalist reported. The Federalist story included purported screenshots of previous and current versions of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form. The current form allows the whistleblower to check a box indicating that the person either learned of the information firsthand or from others, whereas the previous form contained the following language:But as Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown above doesn't say there was a 'requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.' The law has never required them to do so. Sanchez pointed out that the form pictured above contains a 'description of the Inspector General's (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim.' It does not say, Sanchez continued, 'that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more.' The Intelligence Community Inspector General's Office (ICIG) was forced to issue a statement on Sept. 30 correcting the record. The statement read, in part: The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant - or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees - need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower's lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations. In other words, the entire premise of The Federalist story is wrong. No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress. Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a 'shameless legal bluff.' 'No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,' Devine told us. 'Not even the president can change that unilaterally.' So how did the claim come about? It's true that the wording on an explanatory form for whistleblowers was changed, but the rules were not. The ICIG's statement notes that the wording was revised because 'certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.' Devine added that government whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing based on hearsay are still valuable resources in ferreting out government waste, corruption, and wrongdoing. 'If we restricted all credible government investigations to those with whistleblowers who have firsthand information, we'd cancel out 90% of law enforcement activity,' Devine said. 'Whistleblower investigations are routinely based on hearsay.' The ICIG's Sept. 30 statement additionally noted that the whistleblower's complaint did not contain only secondhand, 'unsubstantiated assertions.' The whistleblower 'checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, 'I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved'; and the second box stated that, 'Other employees have told me about events or records involved.'' In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.

In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.