ReportWire

Category: Fact Checking

Fact Checking | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.

  • Second Night of the GOP Convention – FactCheck.org

    Second Night of the GOP Convention – FactCheck.org

    [ad_1]

    Summary

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    On a night when the focus was on safety and unity at the Republican convention, a number of GOP leaders also offered up some misleading and false claims we have seen before.

    • Several people described “dramatic increases” in crime under President Joe Biden, as House Speaker Mike Johnson put it. But FBI and other crime data show that violent crime and murders have decreased under Biden.
    • Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump said African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and women all had “record low unemployment rates” under former President Donald Trump, ignoring the fact that most of those lows were surpassed or matched under Biden.
    • Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake falsely claimed that Rep. Ruben Gallego recently “voted to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election.” Gallego voted against a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. A 1996 federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting.
    • House Majority Leader Steve Scalise parroted the unfounded claim, repeated so often by Trump, that other countries’ “prisons are being emptied” and the inmates sent to the U.S. border.
    • Rep. Elise Stefanik claimed that Trump had delivered “the most secure border in our nation’s history.” That’s inaccurate. Illegal border crossings, as measured by apprehensions at the southwest border, were 14.7% higher in Trump’s final year compared with the year before he took office.
    • Lara Trump also talked about “our energy independence” under Trump. While the U.S. became a net energy producer and exporter late in Trump’s presidency, that has continued during the Biden administration.

    Several speakers also blamed Biden for high inflation — Stefanik called it “Biden-flation.” We wrote about that claim in our story on the first night of the convention, saying that economists point to the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic as the primary reason for higher inflation.

    Analysis

    Crime

    Several speakers falsely claimed or suggested violent crime had increased under President Joe Biden. Violent crime and murders nationwide have gone down, according to FBI and other crime data. Figures from the Major Cities Chiefs Association show an 8.6% decline in murders in 69 large U.S. cities from 2020, the year before Biden took office, to 2023, as we’ve written before.

    In former President Donald Trump’s last year in office — 2020 — murders and violent crime went up, and there was a smaller increase the following year, Biden’s first year in office. But since then, murders and violent crime have been dropping.

    But that’s not the picture several convention speakers painted. House Speaker Mike Johnson said, “We can’t survive the dramatic increases in violence, crime and drugs that the Democrats’ policies have brought upon our communities.” Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri said that “the rule of law has disintegrated” under Biden and “crime is rampant.”

    Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson said that his city “bucked national trends and achieved a remarkable three straight years of violent crime reduction.” The city did buck the national trend in 2021, when violent crime and murders went up overall. But Dallas’ violent crime reduction in 2022 and 2023 mirrors the national trend. (The number of murders in the city actually went up in 2023, according to Dallas’ crime analytics dashboard.)

    In campaign rallies, Trump, too, has falsely claimed the country is seeing rising crime, and earlier this year, he called the FBI data that contradicted him “fake numbers.”

    The FBI 2022 annual report showed a slight decline in the nationwide murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate of 0.5 points from 2020, the year before Biden took office, to 2022. The violent crime rate dropped by 15.4 points, to 369.8 per 100,000 population in 2022. (For these figures, see Table 1 in the CIUS Estimations download for the crime in the U.S. reports.) The FBI figures are based on voluntary reports by agencies nationwide.

    Preliminary FBI figures for the first quarter of 2023 show further declines in violent crimes and murders. We won’t have the full-year report for a few more months.

    Other reports with more recent statistics show crime declining in 2023 and continuing to do so this year. The latest figures from the Major Cities Chiefs Association show a 10.4% decline in the number of murders from 2022 to 2023 in 69 large U.S. cities. Rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults also went down. Figures for the first quarter of 2024 indicate that violent crimes dropped again, compared with the same time period last year.

    Figures compiled by AH Datalytics, an independent criminal justice data analysis group, show a 17.5% reduction in murders in more than 200 U.S. cities so far this year, compared with the same point in 2023.

    ‘Record Low Unemployment Rates’

    Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said there were “record low unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and women” during her father-in-law’s presidency. But unemployment rates for three of those demographics were lower, or as low, under Biden.

    African Americans: Under Trump, the lowest unemployment rate for African Americans was 5.3% in August 2019 – the lowest rate on record at that time, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data going back to 1972. But under Biden, the unemployment rate for African Americans reached a new low of 4.8% in April 2023.

    Hispanic Americans: The unemployment rate for Hispanics also went down to a new low of 3.9% under Trump, according to BLS data going back to 1973. But the lowest Hispanic unemployment under Biden was also 3.9% in September 2022, tying the record during the Trump administration.

    Women: For women, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was 3.4%, and the lowest rate under Biden was 3.3%. Neither is lower than the record of 2.7% in May 1953 during the Eisenhower administration.

    Asian Americans: Trump still has the record for the lowest unemployment rate for Asian Americans — 2% in June 2019, although BLS data for the Asian population only go back to 2003. The lowest the rate has been under Biden was 2.3% in July 2023.

    Lake’s False Claim About Gallego

    Kari Lake, who is running against Rep. Ruben Gallego in Arizona’s Senate race, falsely claimed that last week he “voted to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election.”

    Gallego was one of the 198 Democrats who voted against the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which passed the House of Representatives on July 10 in a mostly party-line vote. The bill, which was introduced by House Republicans, primarily requires voters to provide proof of citizenship at the time they register to vote in federal elections.

    But the bill’s defeat doesn’t mean that people in the U.S. illegally can vote, as Lake wrongly claimed. A federal law enacted in 1996 already prohibits anyone but U.S. citizens from voting in elections at the federal level. Instances of noncitizens voting are rare, and violators can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to one year.

    “Of course only U.S. citizens should vote,” Gallego said in a statement about his vote against the SAVE Act. “But this bill isn’t about that, it’s about making it harder for Arizonans to vote, including married women, servicemembers, Native Arizonans, seniors, and people with disabilities.”

    Scalise’s Unfounded Claim about ‘Prisons Being Emptied’

    House Majority Leader Steve Scalise parroted the unfounded claim, repeated so often by Trump, that other countries’ “prisons are being emptied” and the inmates sent to the U.S. border.

    “Biden and Harris opened it [the border] up to the entire world,” Scalise said. “Prisons are being emptied.”

    Virtually every campaign speech Trump has delivered for more than a year has included some version of the unsupported claim that countries around the world are “emptying out their prisons, insane asylums and mental institutions and sending their most heinous criminals to the United States.” As we have reported, immigration experts say they have not seen any evidence to support that claim.

    Trump has provided scant evidence to support it. In June, we looked into Trump’s claim as it relates to Venezuela, because Trump has repeatedly cited a drop in crime as evidence for countries emptying their prisons and sending inmates to the U.S. It’s true that reported crime is trending down in Venezuela, but crime experts in the country say there are numerous reasons for that — including an enormous emigration of citizens and a consolidation of gang activity — and they have nothing to do with sending criminals to the U.S.

    Roberto Briceño-León, founder and director of the independent Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, told us poverty has also played a role.

    “Crime is reduced in Venezuela due to a reduction in crime opportunities: bank robberies disappear because there is no money to steal; kidnappings are reduced because there is no cash to pay ransoms; robberies on public transportation cease because travelers have no money in their pockets and old, worthless cell phones; and assaults on bank money dispensers disappear because the cash they can give to their clients has not exceeded twenty US dollars,” Briceño-León said.

    Some criminals have left Venezuela “seeking to continue their criminal life in other places where they find greater opportunities for profit,” he said, but the vast majority of emigrants from Venezuela are “honest workers fleeing the country’s poverty, looking for a job and a better future.”

    “We have no evidence that the Venezuelan government is emptying the prisons or mental hospitals to send them out of the country, whether to the USA or any other country,” Briceño-León said.

    “This claim has come up repeatedly about various countries,” Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, told us. “While the actions of institutions in Venezuela is not our specialty, we are unaware of any action by Venezuelan authorities (or those of any other country) to empty its jails and prisons or its mental-health institutions to send criminals or people with mental-health issues to the U.S.”

    ‘Most Secure Border’ Talking Point

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, who is the House Republican Conference chair, claimed that Trump would “once again deliver the most secure border in our nation’s history.” It’s a popular talking point — one that the former president made in his debate against Biden. But it’s inaccurate.

    As we wrote in “Trump’s Final Numbers,” illegal border crossings, as measured by apprehensions at the southwest border, were 14.7% higher in Trump’s final year compared with 2016 — the last full year before Trump took office.

    After dropping dramatically in Trump’s first year in office to a level not seen since at least before 2000, the number of apprehensions began to rise in Trump’s second year. Apprehensions peaked under Trump in 2019, when nearly 800,000 people were caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally at the southern border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection monthly data spanning fiscal years 2019 and 2020. That was higher than any year going back to 2007, and was higher than any year during President Barack Obama’s two terms in office, based on our review of monthly CBP data.

    In 2020, aided in part by the pandemic, numbers fell from the 2019 totals, but they were still higher than all but one of Obama’s eight years.

    Trump didn’t deliver on his campaign promise to build a 1,000-mile-long wall along the southwest border. Nonetheless, a substantial amount of fencing was constructed — mostly to replace dilapidated or outdated primary or secondary fencing. There were 458 miles of “border wall system” built during Trump’s term, including 373 miles of replacement barriers, according to a January 2021 Customs and Border Protection status report

    More Energy Independence Claims

    While continuing to talk about “what life actually looked like” under Trump, Lara Trump said the U.S. had “our energy independence,” suggesting that is no longer the case under Biden.

    For starters, as we’ve written, the U.S. was never 100% energy self-sufficient, under Trump. The country continued to import foreign sources of energy, including oil.

    During the Trump administration, the U.S. did produce more energy than it consumed and export more energy, including petroleum, than it imported. It had been decades since that last happened, according to the Energy Information Administration.

    But since Biden has been president, the U.S. has continued to be a net energy producer and a net energy exporter. Also, the U.S. is producing record amounts of crude oil and natural gas under Biden, contrary to claims that his policies have “crushed” American energy.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    Sources

    Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime Data Explorer. Quarterly Uniform Crime Report data, January through March 2024. 10 Jun 2024.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation. “UCR Summary of Crime in the Nation, 2022.” Oct 2023.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime Data Explorer. Crime in the United States Annual Reports, CIUS estimations, Table 1.

    Major Cities Chiefs Association. Violent Crime Survey — National Totals, January 1 to December 31, 2023, and 2022. accessed 17 Jun 2024.

    Major Cities Chiefs Association. Violent Crime Survey — National Totals, January 1 to December 31, 2020, and 2019. accessed 17 Jun 2024.

    Major Cities Chiefs Association. Violent Crime Survey — National Totals, January 1 to March 31, 2024, and 2023. accessed 17 Jun 2024.

    AH Datalytics. YTD Murder Comparison. accessed 17 Jun 2024.

    Robertson, Lori. “FactChecking Trump’s Rally, Fox Interview.” FactCheck.org. 30 May 2023.

    Farley, Robert and Jaramillo, Catalina. “Crime Drop in Venezuela Does Not Prove Trump’s Claim the Country Is Sending Criminals to U.S.” FactCheck.org. 14 June 2024.

    Gore, D’Angelo. “The Whoppers of 2023.” FactCheck.org. 21 Dec 2023.

    Venezuelan Observatory of Violence. “Annual Report Violence 2023.” 28 Dec 2023.

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Seas) Unemployment Rate – Black or African American (LNS14000006). Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Seas) Unemployment Rate – Hispanic or Latino (LNS14000009). Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Seas) Unemployment Rate – Women (LNS14000002). Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Seas) Unemployment Rate – Asian (LNS14032183). Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    U.S. House of Representatives. Roll Call 345, H.R. 8281. Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    Cardinal, Theresa Cardinal, et al. “Four Things to Know about Noncitizen Voting.” Bipartisan Policy Center. 13 Mar 2024.

    Gallego, Reuben. “Gallego Statement on Opposition to H.R. 8281.” Press release. 10 Jul 2024.

    Gore, D’Angelo. “Examining U.S. ‘Energy Independence’ Claims.” FactCheck.org. 9 Mar 2022.

    U.S. Energy Information Administration. Table 1.1. Primary Energy Overview. Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    U.S. Energy Information Administration. Table 3.3a. Petroleum Trade: Overview. Accessed 16 Jul 2024.

    [ad_2]

    D’Angelo Gore

    Source link

  • RNC 2024: Fact-checks from Day 2

    RNC 2024: Fact-checks from Day 2

    [ad_1]

    MILWAUKEE — The Republican National Convention’s second night sounded false alarms about a Democratic plot to turn migrants into voters and invocations of divine intervention in preventing former President Donald Trump’s assassination.

    The party offered a lineup of Senate candidates and Americans who said President Joe Biden’s immigration and crime policies contributed to their loved ones’ deaths. Some speakers swiped at Vice President Kamala Harris, often mispronouncing her first name by emphasizing its second syllable and mocking her as the “border czar,” which exaggerated the scope of her authority.

    With Democrats divided over whether Biden should remain as their nominee, Republicans displayed party unity, with speeches from former Trump primary rivals Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy. Former Trump administration officials Dr. Ben Carson and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders credited the hand of God in saving Trump’s life from an assassination attempt. 

    Here are fact-checks of claims about immigration, national security and crime from Day 2.

    Immigration

    Kari Lake, Arizona Senate candidate: “Just last week, Ruben Gallego voted to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election.”

    False.

    U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego D-Ariz., did not vote to allow millions of people in the country illegally to vote in the 2024 election. Federal law already bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

    Gallego voted against the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which requires people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. 

    When Gallego voted against the bill, he said in a statement, “Of course only U.S. citizens should vote.” Gallego said the bill would create obstacles for Arizonans to vote because of the requirements to provide documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate.

    Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.: “On the border, Biden and Harris opened it up to the entire world. Prisons are being emptied.”

    False. 

    The U.S. southern border is not open. A combination of hundreds of physical barriers such as fences, surveillance technology, drones and about 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents help limit who and what comes into the United States. Additionally, immigration officials at the border continue to enforce immigration law. 

    U.S. immigration officials have arrested people with criminal convictions at the border, but there is no evidence that prisons are being emptied or that foreign countries are sending prisoners to the U.S.

    Immigration officials arrested about 110,000 noncitizens with criminal convictions (whether in the U.S. or abroad) from fiscal years 2021 to 2024, federal data shows. That accounts for people stopped at and between ports of entry. (This data includes about four months of Trump’s administration.)

    Not everyone was let in. The term “noncitizens” includes people who may have had legal immigration status in the U.S. but were not U.S. citizens. The data reflects the people that the federal government knows about, but it’s inexhaustive. Some countries don’t share their criminal databases with the U.S. However, immigration experts previously told PolitiFact that despite the data’s limitations, there is no evidence to support the statement.

    Former presidential candidate Nikki Haley addresses the Republican National Convention on July 16, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP)

    Nikki Haley, former Republican presidential candidate: “Kamala had one job, one job. And that was to fix the border.”

    Mostly False. 

    In March 2021, President Joe Biden tasked Harris to work with officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to address the root causes motivating people to migrate to the United States.

    “One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in a country, it benefits everyone. It benefits us, it benefits the people, and it grows the economies there,” Biden said at a March 2021 meeting with Harris.

    Republicans began calling Harris the “border czar” soon after that. 

    In April 2021, when a reporter asked Harris whether she would visit the border, she clarified that her role was not managing the border.

    “The president has asked (Homeland Security) Secretary (Alejandro) Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border. And he has been working very hard at that, and it’s showing some progress because of his hard work,” Harris said at a roundtable. “I have been asked to lead the issue of dealing with root causes in the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador), similar to what the then-vice president did many years ago.”

    Harris reiterated this duty in June 2021, when she visited the border in El Paso, Texas, with Mayorkas. In comments to reporters, Harris said she was addressing “the root causes of migration, predominantly out of Central America.” Mayorkas, meanwhile, said, “It is my responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security to address the security and management of our border.”

    Sen. Tom Cotton, R- Ark.: “Joe Biden gave migrants welfare, free hotels.”

    Mostly False. 

    Most immigrants living illegally in the U.S. are ineligible for benefits from federal programs. A valid Social Security number is needed to receive most federal benefits. 

    Migrants are eligible for emergency medical care, and some women and children may qualify for food assistance. Additionally, certain immigrants in the U.S. illegally may qualify for state and local public assistance programs. But this type of medical and state assistance predates Biden’s presidency.

    Certain nonprofit organizations provide shelter for migrants. These services can then be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    The use of hotels near the border to house migrants did not begin with Biden. Previous administrations, including Trump’s, have used hotel rooms to house children and families who enter the country illegally. 

    FEMA has been reimbursing nonprofits for their services to migrants since 2019 when Trump’s administration, during an uptick in immigration apprehensions, requested funding to go to migrant support services. 

    DHS coordinates with nonprofits “to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, releasing noncitizens directly into border communities without immediate support,” a 2023 Government Accountability Office report said.

    In 2021, the Biden administration entered a short-term contract with a Texas nonprofit organization to use hotel rooms to provide temporary shelter and case processing to migrant families. Under U.S. laws and a court settlement, immigration officials cannot detain minors, including those traveling with families.

    Anne Fundner, California mother: “We have seen the highest number of fentanyl deaths during the Biden-Harris administration.”

    True.

    Drug overdose deaths have reached new highs during the Biden administration, a continuation of a trend that started under Barack Obama and continued under Trump. Fundner’s 15-year-old son, Weston, died from a fentanyl overdose in February 2022, she told the crowd.

    National Institute on Drug Abuse data shows more than 73,800 overdose deaths from nonmethadone synthetic opioids — mostly fentanyl — in 2022. In 2020, the year before Biden took office, 56,516 people died from these overdoses. There were 3,105 in 2013. 

    Fundner blamed “open borders” for her son’s death. Fentanyl is smuggled mostly through official ports of entry, and not by immigrants at illegal crossing points. 


    Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., speaks July 16, 2024, during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. (AP)

    National security

    Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind.: “I’ve never been more ashamed than when Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal (of Afghanistan) left 13 American heroes dead, and then he lied about it.”

    Biden’s explanation about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was publicly contradicted by high-ranking military figures. (PolitiFact does not generally rate whether people “lie.”)

    Banks is referring to the 2021 suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members and about 170 Afghan civilians at Hamid Karzai International Airport’s Abbey Gate. It followed the fall of Afghanistan’s government under military pressure from the Taliban.

    Biden ordered the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021, saying “the decision was based on “the unanimous recommendation” of civilian and military advisers — the secretary of state, the defense secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, service chiefs and commanders in the field.

    “Their recommendation was that the safest way to secure the passage of the remaining Americans and others out of the country was not to continue with 6,000 troops on the ground in harm’s way in Kabul, but rather to get them out through nonmilitary means,” Biden said.

    Biden added that his advisers agreed with his course. 

    ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an Aug. 19, 2021, interview whether his military advisers “did not tell you, ‘No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that?’”

    Biden said, “No. No one said that to me that I can recall.”

    But when top generals testified under oath to Congress several weeks later, they said they had urged Biden to keep a few thousand troops in Afghanistan rather than withdrawing entirely. 

    During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Gen. Kenneth (Frank) McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, didn’t specify his recommendation to Biden, but said his advice was guided by his “personal view” that withdrawing forces entirely “would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and, eventually, the Afghan government.”

    Gen. Mark Milley, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked whether he’d agreed with the 2,500-troop recommendation, and he said he did. Pressed to explain his interaction with Biden, Milley declined, saying, “I’m not going to characterize a statement of the president of the United States.”

    Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.: “Under Donald Trump, we weren’t at war.”

    False. 

    The U.S. remained at war in Afghanistan throughout Trump’s presidency. There were about 2,500 service members left in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, at the end of his term in January 2021.

    Trump didn’t enter the U.S. into a new, sustained armed conflict with another country, or seek a new congressional authorization to use military force. He frequently criticized American involvement in the Middle East and took steps to withdraw troops from Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But Trump used military force in other countries under the broad use-of-force authorization granted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, his administration ordered airstrikes and drone attacks, supplemented allied militaries with U.S. troops, deployed special operations forces in the Middle East and beyond, and ordered the killing of Iran’s Gen. Qassim Soleimani.

    Trump increased commitments and resources in Iraq and Syria to fight the militant Islamic State group, which included sending additional service members.

    Records show that, during Trump’s presidency, about 65 active-duty service members died in hostile action.

    TV personality Savannah Chrisley: “Hunter Biden is roaming around free and attending classified meetings.” 

    The White House denies Biden’s son, Hunter, attends classified briefings. Although we found a recent NBC News report that said Biden had joined some of his father’s White House meetings after the June 27 presidential debate, it said nothing about him attending “classified meetings.”

    Hunter Biden was recently convicted of three felonies in a gun-related case. NBC News reported July 2 that Hunter Biden “joined meetings with President Joe Biden and his top aides since his father returned to the White House from Camp David, Maryland,” citing “four people familiar with the matter.”

    White House spokesman Andrew Bates told NBC News, “Hunter came back with the President from their family weekend at Camp David and went with the president straight into speech prep,” referring to Biden’s preparation with aides for remarks about the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

    After Chrisley’s accusation, Bates told PolitiFact that Hunter Biden “has not” attended classified briefings. Bates also told PolitiFact that Hunter Biden lacks a security clearance and therefore cannot legally attend classified meetings.

    Crime

    RNC video: “It’s not just big cities. Rising crime is a problem everywhere.”

    Mostly False.

    Federal data shows the overall number of violent crimes, including homicide, has declined during Biden’s presidency. Property crimes have risen, mostly because of motor vehicle thefts.

    The FBI data shows the overall violent crime rate — which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault per 100,000 population — fell by about 2.9% from 2020, Trump’s final year as president, to 2021, Biden’s first year in office. It fell an additional 1.6%, between 2021 and 2022. 

    The most recent year for which the FBI has released full-year data is 2022, but private-sector analyses show continued declines in crime. For instance, the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, samples reports from law enforcement agencies in several dozen cities to gauge crime data more quickly than the FBI. The council’s data shows the declining trend for violent crime continued into 2023.

    Property crime has increased under Biden, though three of the four main categories the FBI tracks — larceny, burglary, and arson — were at or below their prepandemic level by 2022. The main exception has been motor vehicle theft, which rose 4% from 2020 to 2021 and 10.4% from 2021 to 2022.


    Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., speaks July 16, 2024, during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. (AP)

    House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.: Vice President Kamala Harris “even promoted a fund to release the criminals from jail. …  One criminal Kamala Harris freed in Minneapolis went on to murder a man in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

    Half True.

    Shawn Michael Tillman was sentenced to life in prison for the May 2022 murder of Demitri Ellis Strong in St. Paul. 

    Before the murder, Tillman committed multiple indecent exposure felonies in 2016 and 2017. He was convicted in November 2018 and was sentenced to 39 months in prison. The Minnesota Freedom Fund, which provides bail funding and immigration bonds to those who can’t afford it, paid Tillman’s $2,000 bail in April 2022. 

    In June 2020, during the protests against the murder of George Floyd, Harris tweeted in support of the Minnesota Freedom Fund “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” The organization raised $35 million amid widespread celebrity attention..

    Harris did not “free” Tillman and does not have that power as vice president. Harris has not endorsed the organization since.

    Savannah Chrisley: “My family was persecuted by rogue prosecutors in Fulton County due to our public profile. I know, Fulton County. They know how to do it, don’t they?”

    Chrisley’s statement about her parents’ court case could leave viewers with the false impression that she was referring to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is prosecuting Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. The case against “Chrisley Knows Best” stars Todd and Julie Chrisley was prosecuted by federal prosecutors in northern Georgia, not Willis.

    A federal grand jury indicted the reality show stars in 2019 on multiple counts of conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion. Todd and Julie Chrisley were sentenced in 2022 and their sentences were later reduced to 10 and five years, respectively, but an appeals court sent Julie’s sentencing back to a lower court in June. 

    Prosecutors said the couple conspired to defraud community banks in the Atlanta area to obtain more than $36 million in personal loans. The Chrisleys submitted false bank statements and other records to Georgia community banks to obtain the loans and then spent the money on luxury items and used new fraudulent loans to pay back old ones. After spending the money, Todd Chrisley filed for bankruptcy, and the couple failed to file tax returns for several years.

    Trump nominated Byung J. “BJay” Pak, the U.S. attorney in northern Georgia who oversaw the prosecution. Pak resigned shortly before Joe Biden took office in 2021. 

    RELATED: 2024 RNC fact-check: Trump appears with Vance, allies talk economy on Day 1

    RELATED: Trump VP pick J.D. Vance says media twisted remarks on abortion, domestic violence. We looked closer

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No, This Photo Does Not Show Epstein and Trump Posing with a Minor Girl

    No, This Photo Does Not Show Epstein and Trump Posing with a Minor Girl

    [ad_1]

    Claim:

    A photograph shared in early July 2024 authentically showed Jeffrey Epstein posing with former U.S. President Donald Trump and a young girl.

    Rating:

    In early July 2024, a photograph circulated on social media allegedly showing former U.S. President Donald Trump posing with Jeffrey Epstein — a financier and convicted child sex trafficker who died in jail in 2019 — and a young girl wearing a crop top.

    An X post containing the image had amassed more than 759,000 views, 17,000 reactions, and 9,700 shares at the time of this writing.

    “If you are still a trump supporter, maybe you should see someone,” one X user said in late June 2024 in connection to the picture.

    (Threads user @hpsc24)

    The photo was also shared in January 2024 on social media platforms such as Reddit, Threads and Facebook. It was likewise posted on Chinese-language online forums and websites.

    “Would you still vote for him if your daughter was in this picture?” one Threads user asked.

    “Having a hard time finding this picture anywhere on the internet before like two weeks ago,” another Reddit user commented.

    In short, we found the image contained numerous signs it was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). For instance, the girl’s left hand seemed to be deformed, along with the left sleeve of Trump’s jacket.

    (X user @FlyingDutchPall)

    Moreover, via reverse-image search, we found a full-size version of the viral image shared on Quora.

    (TheGoodRussian Quora profile)

    In the original version of the image we spotted more indications the photograph was artificially created. For instance, the faces of people in the background were deformed, Trump had only one leg and Epstein seemed to be dissolving into the couch.

    (TheGoodRussian Quora profile)

    Given that the in-question photograph was created using AI software, we have rated it as “Fake.”

    For insights into Jeffrey Epstein’s court documents, check out our article “A Quick Guide to the Jeffrey Epstein Documents Unsealed on Jan. 3, 2024.” In the past, we fact-checked other Epstein and Trump-related claims, including debunking a supposed photo of Trump and Epstein on a plane. In July 2023, we also investigated another AI-generated image, allegedly showing Trump and Epstein posing with underage girls.

    [ad_2]

    Aleksandra Wrona

    Source link

  • Photo doesn’t show Trump’s ear ‘grew back.’ It’s from 2022

    Photo doesn’t show Trump’s ear ‘grew back.’ It’s from 2022

    [ad_1]

    A shooter targeted former President Donald Trump in an assassination attempt during a July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump’s ear was wounded, but he was otherwise unharmed.

    Some social media posts claim his ear healed extraordinarily quickly.

    “The top part of his ear grew back. (Yes. This is from today),” a July 15 X post read. The post featured a photo of Trump with an unharmed ear.

    A July 15 Threads post shared a screenshot of the X post with the same claim.

    (Screenshot from Threads)

    It was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.)

    The photo of Trump the posts used was not captured after the assassination attempt. A reverse-image search showed the photo was taken in 2022.

    It was cropped from a Reuters photo taken Sept. 17, 2022, of Trump listening to Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, speak at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, when Vance was a Senate candidate. Trump announced July 15 that Vance would be his running mate.

    Trump’s first public appearance after the shooting was July 15 at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. His right ear was bandaged

    Former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee for president, watches July 15, 2024, during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. (AP)

    We rate the claim that a photo shows Trump’s ear “grew back” Pants on Fire!

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who Invented Night Vision and How Does It Work?

    Who Invented Night Vision and How Does It Work?

    [ad_1]

    When the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm began on January 17, 1991, television viewers across the world were presented with some of the most awe-inspiring images of modern, high-tech warfare ever broadcast: stealth bombers dropping precision “smart bombs” on Iraqi command posts, helicopters and ground attack aircraft picking off swathes of enemy vehicles, and tanks duking it out in the desert – all captured in the eerie green glow of night vision. Lifting the protective cloak of darkness has been the dream of all armies since the dawn of human civilization, and today night vision technology is so advanced that battles can now be effectively fought at any hour, day or night. But how does this technology actually work, and who invented it? Well, slap on your NODs as we dive into the fascinating science and history of seeing in the dark.

    The story of night vision begins in the 1790s with British astronomer and polymath Sir John Herschel. While trying to develop a light filter that would allow him to better observe the surface of the sun, Herschel made a curious discovery:

    What appeared remarkable was that when I used some of them, I felt a sensation of heat, though I had but little light; while others gave me much light, with scarce any sensation of heat.”

    To determine which parts of the visible light spectrum transmitted the most heat, Herschel built a device he dubbed a spectroradiometer. Sunlight was passed through a prism to split it into its constituent colours, which were projected onto a screen. Herschel then used a thermometer to measure the temperature within each coloured band. He discovered that the violet end of the spectrum transferred the least heat, and the red end the most. Many scientists might have left it at that, but Herschel decided to go one step further, placing his thermometer just beyond the red band, into an area with no visible light. To his surprise, this region was hottest of all, leading Herschel to conclude:

    “…that the full red falls still short of the maximum of heat; which perhaps lies even a little beyond visible refraction. In this case, radiant heat will at least partly, if not chiefly, consist, if I may be permitted the expression, of invisible light; that is to say, of rays coming from the sun, that have such a momentum as to be unfit for vision.”

    In the 1880s, this “radiant heat” or “invisible light” was dubbed infrared, meaning “below the red end of the spectrum.” Today, we know that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation and is composed of waves (yes: also particles, but we will save the quantum physics of it all for another video), and that its colour and other properties are determined by its wavelength. The part of the electromagnetic spectrum which humans can perceive extends from 380 to 700 nanometres. Above this, extending from 400 to 10 nanometers, is the ultraviolet band; while below, extending from 750 to 1000 nanometers, is the infrared band. Infrared radiation is given off by all objects hotter than absolute zero, and is excellent at transferring thermal energy; indeed, much of the heat we feel from the sun is transferred to our bodies via infrared radiation. Objects at different temperatures give off different wavelengths of infrared; for example, humans mainly radiate heat in the long-wavelength infrared band from 800-1500 nanometers while hotter objects like vehicle engines also emit short and mid-wavelength infrared in the 140-800 nanometer band.

    However, Herschel’s method of detecting infrared radiation was crude and cumbersome, making this “radiant heat” difficult to study. Then, nearly a century later in 1878, American inventor Samuel Langley – most famous as a direct rival of the Wright Brothers – invented an infrared detection instrument called a bolometer. This comprised two thin strips of platinum or palladium coated in lampblack, one shielded from light and the other not. When infrared radiation struck the unshielded strip, it was absorbed by the lampblack and heated up the strip, causing its electrical resistance to change. This change could then be detected using a sensitive instrument called a galvanometer. While simple, Langley’s bolometer was remarkably sensitive, able to detect the body heat of a cow at a range of 400 metres.

    At around this same time, scientists like Ferdinand Braun in Germany and Jagadish Chandra Bose in India discovered that certain minerals could be used to detect electromagnetic waves – a phenomenon known as photoconduction. These discoveries later led to the development of crystal radios, the first widely-available detectors for receiving commercial radio broadcasts. They also inspired one of the first attempts to use infrared radiation for practical purposes. In 1917, an American inventor named Theodore W. Case discovered that the compound Thallous Sulphide exhibited photoconductivity in the infrared band. Funded by the U.S. Army, Case attempted to exploit this effect to communicate over longer distances and through hazier atmospheres than was possible using regular signal mirrors or heliographs. And while he succeeded in transmitting infrared messages over 28 kilometres, the unreliability of his Thallous Sulphide detector and its tendency to break down with repeated exposure to light soon put an end to his research.

    However, all of the infrared detection devices developed to this point could only measure the presence or intensity of infrared radiation; they could not display any sort of image of said radiation’s source. The first device capable of doing so was the evaporograph, developed in 1929 by Dr. Marianus Czerny from the University of Frankfurt. Originally intended to allow anti-aircraft gunners to spot their targets by the heat of their engines, the evaporograph consisted of a sealed, semi-evacuated chamber containing silicone oil vapour and a thin, transparent celluloid membrane. When infrared radiation such as the from the heat of an enemy aircraft’s engines – was focused by a germanium dioxide lens onto the membrane, where it caused differential evaporation and condensation of the oil and optical distortions that could be picked up either by the human eye or a television imaging tube. Though not used during the Second World War, the technology of the evaporograph was considered so strategically important that it remained classified in the UK until 1956.

    Five years later, engineers G. Holst and H. De Boer, working for Philips in the Netherlands, developed a fully-electronic infrared detector which would form the basis of nearly all night vision technology to come. Known as an image converter tube or Holst Glass, this comprised an evacuated glass tube with one end coated in a thin layer of caesium and silver oxide to form a photocathode. Behind this were a series of tubular accelerating and focusing anodes, and finally a phosphor-coated screen. When infrared radiation struck the photocathode, it released electrons via the photoelectric effect. These electrons were then accelerated and focused by the anodes onto the phosphor screen, which converted them into a visible image of the infrared source. In 1941, the Holst Glass was refined by Radio Corporation of America engineer Vladimir Zworykin – a key figure in the development of television – to create the RCA 1P25 image converter tube, which was widely used in American night vision gear near the end of the Second World War.

    However, the first military to deploy electronic night vision gear in combat was that of Nazi Germany. German infrared detector were based on the work of Edgar Kutzcher of the University in Berlin, who in 1933 discovered that Lead Sulphide – better known as Galena – exhibits photoconductivity within the short or mid-wavelength infrared band. Among the first such devices the Fahr-und-Zielgerät (AKA “Driving and Aiming Device”) or FG 1250 Sperber, was developed by optics company Carl Zeiss AG and first issued in 1941. However, since short and mid-wavelength infrared radiation is only given off by very hot objects, these detectors were by necessity active, and had to be used with large infrared spotlights to illuminate the target. This not only made early night vision gear like the FG 1250 extremely heavy and bulky – meaning it could only be carried aboard tanks, half-tracks, and other vehicles – but it rendered the user extremely visible and vulnerable if the enemy also happened to have infrared detection capability. Later in the war, German weapons manufacturer C.G. Haenel developed a miniaturized version of this technology called the Zielgerät 1229 or Vampir. This consisted of an infrared spotlight and detector scope mounted atop an Stg.44 assault rifle, powered by a large battery in a wooden box and a smaller battery fitted into a standard-issue gas mask carrier tube. This whole assembly was strapped to a regular infantry backpack frame and weighed a whopping 15 kilograms. Carried by specialized troops known as Nachtjäger or “Night Hunters”, Vampir units were used in small numbers on the Eastern Front starting in February 1945.

    Meanwhile, the US military was developing night vision gear based on a completely different – and far simpler – technology. Known as Metascopes, these devices were developed by the Institute of Optics at the University of Rochester in New York and used a series of special phosphor compounds to convert infrared into visible light. In a typical metascope, a spherical mirror gathered infrared light and focused it into a phosphor-coated button. The resulting visible light image was then viewed using a periscopic magnifying optic. In order to function, these phosphors first had to be “excited” or “charged” by exposing them to visible or ultraviolet light or even ionizing radiation. This charge gradually wore off with prolonged exposure to infrared light, so Metascopes featured double-sided, rotating phosphor “buttons” so that one side could be charged using an internal battery-powered lamp or radioactive radium source while the other was being used – allowing near-continuous operation.

    Metascopes were first used in combat during the Operation Torch landings in North Africa in November 1942. Compared to other contemporary night vision technology, the images produced by metascopes were relatively low-resolution, making them unsuited for general observation work. Instead, they were largely used by the U.S. Navy for clandestine ship-to-ship signaling at night, using regular Morse Code signal lamps fitted with infrared filters. Later, most Navy ships were fitted with a system of mast-mounted infrared signal lamps code-named NANCY. Smaller handheld versions were also developed for the U.S. Army, and were largely used – along with infrared flashlights – by paratroopers for regrouping after night drops. And to learn more about how these forgotten devices worked, please check out the author’s video on the subject over on his channel Our Own Devices.

    Meanwhile, the National Defense Research Council or NDRC – an organization set up in 1941 to help the U.S. Armed Forces with weapons-related research and development – was developing a series of practical electronic night-vision scopes based on the RCA 1P25 image converter tube. The first of these, the C1, and C3 telescopes, were developed for the U.S. Navy as more sensitive and high-resolution replacements for the earlier metascopes. Around 13,500 were produced by the end of the war. The C1 and C2 had actually been trialled by the Army, but were found to be too heavy and bulky for field use. Instead, the NDRC developed a more compact infrared scope called the Type D, two of which could be joined together to form infrared binoculars known as the Type B. Various hands-free mounts were devised to allow jeep and tank drivers to operate their vehicles in pitch-darkness, illumination being provided by a set of infrared headlights powered by an onboard generator. Another planned use to allow assault glider pilots to home in on infrared beacons set up on the landing zone.

    Between July 1941 and April 1943, extensive testing of the Type B infrared binoculars was conducted at Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Aberdeen Proving Grounds; Maryland and Fort Knox, Kentucky. While the tests proved that driving military vehicles in pitch darkness was entirely feasible, unfortunately the movement of the binoculars relative to the driver’s eyes tended to produce severe motion sickness. The solution, it was determined, was to mount the binoculars to the driver’s head instead of the vehicle, and to this end a rather goofy-looking night vision helmet was duly developed. However, refinement of this concept proved difficult, and the equipment was not ready by the time the war ended.

    However, in July 1943 U.S. Army Ground Forces headquarters requested the development of two portable infrared devices – one handheld and one for mounting on a rifle. These devices had to include both an imaging scope and an infrared spotlight, weigh no more than 15 pounds, and have a 6-hour power supply. RCA duly developed a pair of devices dubbed the Snooperscope and the Sniperscope. The Snooperscope, intended for reconnaissance work, mounted a detector scope and 30 watt infrared lamp on a single handle and was powered by a 4 kilogram power supply carried in a separate satchel. This contained a 6-volt lead-acid battery and electronic oscillator to step up the battery output to the 4,000 volts needed to run the imaging tube. The total weight of the equipment was 10 kilograms. The Sniperscope was nearly identical, though designed to be mounted on a specially-modified M1 Carbine known as the T3.

    Trials of the Snooperscope and Sniperscope took place at Fort Belvoir and Fort Bending in January and February of 1944. Though initial testing revealed several flaws, such as poor image resolution, difficult-to-manipulate controls and lamp lenses prone to cracking in the rain, later trials with improved prototypes proved that the basic concept was sound, with soldiers being able to identify and accurately hit targets at ranges of up to 200 feet in pitch darkness. After improvements were made to the prototypes to improve their reliability and ruggedness, 1420 Snooperscopes and 715 Sniperscopes were manufactured by Electronic Laboratories of Indianapolis and shipped to the European, China/India/Burma, and Pacific Theatres for field testing. However, hostilities ended in the first two theatres before the scopes could reach combat, so in April 1945 the remaining units were distributed among 7 U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Divisions participating in the invasion of Okinawa – the final objective in the American island-hopping campaign before the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

    The weight and bulk of the infrared equipment made it unsuitable for use on combat patrols, so it was mainly used to defend static positions against infiltration by Japanese combat engineers at night. In this role, the Snooperscope and Sniperscope proved remarkably effective, accounting, by some estimates, for nearly a third of Japanese casualties inflicted by the Divisions issued with this gear. But the newfangled devices were not without their issues. Beyond the weight problem, the short range of the equipment made it unsuited to the relatively open terrain on Okinawa; indeed, the evaluation team’s final report stated that the Sniperscope was ideally suited to jungle combat as encountered on other Pacific islands, where this limited range was less of an issue. Another major problem on Okinawa was U.S. Forces’ extensive use of star shells for battlefield illumination, which constantly blinded the infrared scopes and their operators and made them difficult to use effectively. Yet despite these shortcomings, it was an impressive debut for the first generation of military night vision gear.

    In the post-war era, the Sniperscope was upgraded and re-designated the M3, in which form it saw service during the Korean War. Its direct descendant, the AN/PAS-4, also saw service in the early stages of the Vietnam War. In 1956, however, an RCA engineer named A.H. Sommer discovered a new tri-alkali photocathode material composed of various mixtures of sodium, potassium, antimony, and caesium which was not only far more sensitive than the earlier silver-caesium-oxide combination but also had a broader spectral response, allowing it to detect light in the visible and near-infrared range. This allowed the construction of completely passive image intensifier tubes which could detect and amplify faint sources of light such as airglow, moonlight, or starlight to produce a visible image. As such starlight scopes did not require active illumination, they could be much lighter and much safer for the operator to use. However, these advantages came with one big caveat: as they needed some kind of faint ambient light to operate, starlight scopes could not be used in pitch darkness. This level of night vision technology is typically termed Generation 1, while WWII-era active infrared scopes are retroactively termed Generation 0.

    The first starlight scopes to see combat were the AN/PVS-1 and AN/PVS-2 – also known as the Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Night Observation or STANO. These were developed by the U.S. Army Electronics Command and Wollensak Optical Company of Rochester, New York starting in 1964 and began reaching U.S. troops in Vietnam in 1967. Measuring 45 centimetres long and weighing a whopping 2.7 kilos, the AN/PVS-2 contained three image intensifier tubes stacked one behind the other, so that each amplified the output of the one in front of it. These scopes were designed to be mounted on a variety of weapons, including the M14 and M16 rifles, the M60 machine gun, and even the M79 grenade launcher and M67 recoilless rifle; in practice, however, they were mainly used on the former two, as the recoil from heavier weapons tended to shake the delicate scopes to pieces while the muzzle flash temporary “bloomed” or whited out the intensifier tube, making aimed follow-up shots impossible.

    There were other problems as well. While significantly lighter than earlier active scopes, the AN/PVS-2 proved too heavy and bulky to carry on active combat patrols, while the high-pitched whine produced by its electronics tended to give its users’ position away. Thus, like its WWII predecessors, the scope was mainly used in the static role to defend outposts against enemy attacks at night. Still, the sheer weight of the scope often caused it to shake loose from its mount, making it impossible to maintain zero. Consequently, they were typically used for observation and to direct the fire of other weapons rather than as practical weapons sights.

    Despite these early teething problems, the AN/PVS-2 formed the basis for nearly every passive night vision optic up until the present day, and the technology was rapidly improved to make it more compact, sensitive, and versatile. For example, the AN/PVS-2B introduced Automatic Brightness Correction or ABC, which automatically compensated for rapid changes in ambient light and minimized blooming. Then, in the mid-1970s, the Optic Electronic Corporation of Dallas, Texas developed the Generation 2 image intensifier tube, which added a third component called a microchannel plate – composed of thousands of tiny glass tubes – between the photocathode and the phosphor screen.

    When electrons from the photocathode strike the microchannel plate, they bounce around inside the channels and release more electrons via a process known as an electron avalanche. This results in significantly greater amplification within a single intensifier tube, eliminating the need to cascade multiple tubes together and allowing night vision scopes to be made lighter and more compact. The first Generation 2 scope to enter U.S. military service was the AN/PVS-4, officially adopted in 1978. 15 centimetres shorter and one kilogram lighter than its Vietnam-era ancestors, the AN/PVS-4 proved highly successful, with over 150,000 units being manufactured between 1985 and 2002. In the mid-1980s, the original Generation 2 intensifier tube was replaced with a more advanced Generation 3 model, which differed from previous generation tubes in two main respects. First, the older tri-alkali photocathode material was replaced with an even more sensitive Gallium Arsenide composition; and second, the electrostatic focusing electrodes were removed in favour of a fibre optic inverter assembly – a bundle of optic fibres twisted 180 degrees to flip the image from the phosphor screen right-side up. This allows the tube to be lighter and more compact and the viewing eyepiece to be simpler.

    And this brings us neatly to the present day. While many manufacturers of civilian night vision gear claim that their products are “Generation 4”, according to official U.S. military nomenclature, there is no such thing, with all current passive night-vision technology technically being Generation 3 with various upgrades. For example, most current night vision optics feature a system called Bright Source Protection or BSP, which modulates the voltage supplied to the microchannel plate to prevent concentrated light sources from blooming out the tube. Another common feature called autogating rapidly switches the tube power supply on and off, reducing the duty cycle – that is, the total amount of time the tube is turned on – and extending its service life.

    Increasingly, traditional image enhancement-based night vision is being replaced on the battlefield by thermal imaging, sometimes known as Forward-Looking Infrared or FLIR when used aboard aircraft. Thermal imaging scopes like the U.S. Military’s AN/PAS-13 operate in the medium-to-long wavelength infrared band, allowing them to detect human bodies, vehicle engines, and other common heat sources. They can also see further through fog and smoke than visible light scopes. Technologically speaking, most thermal scopes and cameras are very similar to ordinary digital cameras, using special charge-coupled devices and other photosensors designed to respond to infrared wavelengths. Other designs use miniaturized versions of the bolometer circuit invented by Samuel Langley in 1878. In all cases, however, the focusing lenses cannot be made of glass, which is opaque to infrared. Instead, most use special ceramic lenses made from Germanium oxide, calcium fluoride, or crystalline silicon. Another design challenge unique to thermal scopes and cameras is preventing the thermal emissions of the camera itself from overwhelming the detector. For this reason, many thermal detectors must be actively cooled in order to function properly – either with cryogenic gases, electric heat pumps, or solid-state thermoelectric coolers called Peltier Devices.

    And that, dear viewers, is the story of night vision up to the present day. As you can see, what we typically think of as “night vision” is a bit of a misnomer, as this technology needs at least a small amount of visible light or near-infrared light to function and cannot be used in total darkness. Still, combined with thermal imaging, image intensifier scopes have succeeded in lifting the age-old protective cover of night, leaving few truly safe places on the battlefield.

    Expand for References

    [ad_2]

    Gilles Messier

    Source link

  • Taylor Swift Attended Britney Spears’ Summer Camp for Underprivileged Kids?

    Taylor Swift Attended Britney Spears’ Summer Camp for Underprivileged Kids?

    [ad_1]

    Claim:

    A photo shows Taylor Swift attended a summer camp for underprivileged kids founded by Britney Spears.

    Rating:

    Context

    According to the director of the Britney Spears Camp for the Performing Arts, Taylor Swift didn’t attend the camp as a camp-goer but performed there for students around 2003.

    Also, while Spears claimed the photo of her with Swift was snapped backstage on her “Oops!… I Did It Again” tour, that tour ran in the year 2000. Spears did not tour in 2003, when the photo was purported to have been taken.

    For more than a decade, a claim has circulated widely online that singer-songwriter Taylor Swift attended a summer camp for underprivileged kids founded by pop star Britney Spears. The rumor recently gained traction on social media, with posts like this one on X from the account Tom Brooks, who in early July 2024 shared a throwback photo of the two singers, along with the following explanation:

    A 14-year-old Taylor Swift attending 22-year-old Britney Spears’ summer camp for future performers in 2003. It was a 10-day summer camp created by Britney Spears in 1999. The camp program was for 250 “economically disadvantaged students” and relied on donations and sponsors to help keep the organization going. It was located in South Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The camp was originally named the ‘Britney Spears Camp for the Performing Arts’, until Spears cut ties with the organization in 2004. 

    In 2013, this rumor was shared on X, accompanied by the familiar throwback photo of a young Swift posing with Spears. Generally, whenever the photo and narrative resurfaces on social media, the claim is made that Swift attended the “Toxic” singer’s performing arts summer camp for economically disadvantaged students.

    Even in 2009, fan forums discussed Swift attending Spears’ camp in 2003.

    But the claims are incorrect. Swift was never a camp-goer, but, rather, performed for the youth there in 2003. For this reason, we have rated the claim as “Miscaptioned.” 

    Oops! … Spears Potentially Miscaptioned Her Own Photo

    According to reports, Spears did indeed launch a summer camp in 1999 called the Britney Spears Camp for the Performing Arts, located in South Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The camp aimed to provide high-quality performing arts education over a 10-day period, during which the campers stayed on location at the campsite.

    One Reddit post from 2019 attempted to dive into Swift’s career trajectory and posited that she could attend the camp due to her connection to Spears through the latter’s then-assistant manager, Dan Dymtrow, who allegedly discovered Swift. The Reddit post claimed that “in summer 2003, Taylor became enrolled in Britney Spears’ performing arts camp for 10 days. The camp ran as a charity and most of the kids were low-income but Taylor’s parents apparently were able to get Taylor a spot there by making a donation (hopefully they donated enough to make room for another student so she didn’t take another low income student’s spot?).”

    Adding to the confusion, Spears — who appeared to have deactivated her Instagram account in mid-July 2024 — shared the photo purportedly showing her and Swift at the camp to Instagram in November 2023, alongside a snap of the two singers in 2008 at the MTV Video Music Awards. In her post, Spears recalled she first met Swift backstage while on her “Oops!… I Did It Again” tour, where she said they took the photo together:

    This is way back when but kinda cool … During my Oops Tour, I got a knock at my door. My good friend at the time was the assistant to my manager who was trying to become a manager himself. There was a knock, and then he said, “I have a girl named Taylor who wants to come in and sing for you.” I was like of course !!! He walks in, and she sings a beautiful song with her guitar 🎸 I was like wow wow she’s unbelievable !!! We took a picture, and she then became the most iconic pop woman of our generation. Kinda cool she plays stadiums, and I prefer her videos over movies any day. She’s stunning !!! Girl crush 💄 💄 💄  

    (Instagram account @britneyspears)

    Although Spears claimed the photo was taken during her “Oops!… I Did It Again” tour, which reportedly ran from June 2000 to November 2000, the version of the photo she posted was labeled “2003,” a year in which Spears did not tour.

    Swift Didn’t Attend Camp, But She Did Perform There

    Snopes reached out to several sources, including the current owners of the campsite, the founding director of the camp, and Swift’s team. They confirmed that Swift never attended the camp as a camper. However, she did perform for the campers there at least once.

    We spoke with the camp’s founding director, Donna Milani Luther, who has more than three decades of experience as an arts and creativity educator. Luther recalled her first interaction with Spears and her subsequent introduction to now-34-year-old Swift, who she said would have been about “14 and 15 when we met her.” According to Luther (emphasis our own):

    “Twenty-five years ago, I was here in my office and I was called by Britney Spears’ management. The phone call was in 1999 and our first camp was in August of 2000, so we’re coming on to our 25th year. Britney was starting a foundation at the time and wanted very much to start some kind of program for kids that couldn’t afford lessons in the arts. And essentially they decided starting a summer camp would be the thing to do. We would pull kids from the New York and Boston areas where arts programs had been cut, working with the school systems to find and identify kids from underserved populations who needed some kind of experience where they could be together and learn about dance, about singing and performing. We have a rock ‘n’ roll band, improv, theater, et cetera, et cetera. It’s sort of an immersive arts experience, and Britney’s management asked me if I would design and deliver the program.

    “Britney’s [management] used to send in two or three young people they had just signed to perform at one of the evening performances each summer. So Taylor Swift was one of the young people that they sent in, I think it was 2003. Taylor came to camp two separate years, around 2002 and 2003, and performed for the campers. And that time she was doing more country kind of music. But again, what it did was fulfill my wish to bring in different modes and genres of music and art.

    “Taylor would also talk to the kids [who attended the 10-day camp] about such topics like how she created, where she got her inspiration for songs from, and so on. And then she would spend time in sort of a question-and-answer session because kids are very often interested in how you get someone to listen to the music that you’ve made and what the process of all of that was. She was gracious and kind and always wonderful with the students. She was at camp usually for a day or two out of the 10 days but she was never an attendant, she was a guest performer. And that was two separate years.

    Luther added that through her Britney Spears Foundation, the singer supported the camp for five years until 2004 when the funding was discontinued. After Spears’ involvement with the camp reportedly ended, Luther said she renamed the organization Summer Stars Camp for the Performing Arts and registered it as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and continued to receive support from various celebrities.

    “We’ve gone 20 years without Britney,” Luther explained. “We never had full sponsors again, but other celebrities and performers of note have donated money and time to our camp.” Those performers included the Jonas Brothers and 50 Cent, the latter of whom Luther described as “just wonderful with the campers.”

    Snopes asked Luther about Spears’ post and her claim the photo was taken in 2000 while on tour: “No, that’s not true because we have pictures of Britney in that same outfit at camp. So I’m sure it was taken at camp. Britney may not remember that. But that’s OK.”

    We managed to source a VH1 clip on YouTube, allegedly from 2003, that shows Spears at her summer camp wearing the same outfit as she is in the photo with Swift:

    Additionally, Luther shared a photo from her personal collection of Swift performing at the camp, along with an autographed two-song CD stamped with the year 2003, autographed by Swift and addressed to Luther. 

    “It’s hard to see she’s at camp,” Luther explained of the photo of Swift, “but I know because I can see she’s under the tent that I rent every year.” 

    Photos provided by Donna Milani Luther, founding director of Summer Stars Camp. (Summer Stars Camp for the Performing Arts)

    To further bolster the claim that Swift was a performer at Spears’ camp and not an attendee, in January 2015, the Instagram account belonging to joie_music (who describes herself as a singer, songwriter and vocal coach) posted: “When Taylor and I were little ones performing for the Britney Spears performing arts camp ❤️.”

    (joie_music/Instagram)

    In short, the claim that a photo proves Swift attended a Spears’ summer camp for the underprivileged is miscaptioned. While Swift did perform at the camp at least once, several sources confirm she was not an attending camper. Although Spears posted that the photo in question was taken during her “Oops!… I Did It Again” tour in 2000, there is no proof to support the singer’s claim, which has added to the confusion surrounding the photo.

    Snopes often reports on Swift, including unfounded claims that the singer was pregnant, and rumors that she burned 138 tons of jet fuel visiting her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, over a three-month period.

    Sources

    Archive, View Author, and Get author RSS feed. Britney Spears-Founded Summer Camp Cash-Strapped. 28 Apr. 2010, https://nypost.com/2010/04/28/britney-spears-founded-summer-camp-cash-strapped/.

    Belloni, Matt. “Taylor Swift Could Owe Millions to Ex-Manager.” The Hollywood Reporter, 21 Dec. 2010, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/taylor-swift-owe-millions-manager-64317/.

    “Britney Spears Can’t Remember Meeting Taylor Swift.” ELLE, 1 Aug. 2016, https://www.elle.com.au/culture/celebrity/britney-spears-taylor-swift-radio-interview-4880/.

    Britney Spears publica foto com Taylor Swift antes da fama; veja imagem. https://www.portaldoholanda.com.br/arte-e-cultura/britney-spears-publica-foto-com-taylor-swift-antes-da-fama-veja-imagem. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    Calvo, Laurice. Celebrity Camps. 1 June 2011, https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/celebrity-camps/.

    CNN.Com – Chance to Buy a Bit of Britney Spears – May. 22, 2003. https://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/22/britney.auction/. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    “Contact Details.” Camp Wingate*Kirkland, https://www.campwk.com/contact/. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    Freeman, Hadley. “Summer Camp Is Almost over for Britney Spears’s Students.” The Guardian, 29 Apr. 2010. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2010/apr/29/britney-spears-summer-stars-camp.

    GlitterBritney. The Britney Spears Camp 2003. 2021. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mqHlXAhK7E.

    Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fjoie_music%2F&is_from_rle. Accessed 10 July 2024.

    . https://www.instagram.com/p/CzhxT_NgpRD/?hl=en. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    Music, This Day In. “Taylor Swift.” This Day In Music, 1 Apr. 2024, https://www.thisdayinmusic.com/artists/taylor-swift/.

    “Oops!.. I Did It Again World Tour.” Britney Spears Wiki, https://britneyspears.fandom.com/wiki/Oops!.._I_Did_It_Again_World_Tour. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    Oops I Did It Again World Tour 2000. https://britneyinternational.tripod.com/tourdates101/id9.html. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    “Philanthropy.” BritSpears.Net, 9 Aug. 2016, https://britspears.net/britney-spears/philanthropy.

    Real, Evan. “Britney Spears Doesn’t Remember Meeting Taylor Swift.” Us Weekly, 1 Aug. 2016, https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/britney-spears-doesnt-remember-meeting-taylor-swift-w432029/.

    “Summer Stars Camp for the Performing Arts.” Summerstars, https://www.summerstars.org. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    “Taylor Swift and Britney Spears in the Audience at the 2008 MTV Video…” Getty Images, 8 Sept. 2008, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/taylor-swift-and-britney-spears-in-the-audience-at-the-2008-news-photo/82712136.

    “The Giving Back Fund.” The Giving Back Fund, https://givingback.org. Accessed 10 July 2024.

    “What Is a 501(c)(3)? A Guide to Nonprofit Tax-Exempt Status.” Foundation Group®, https://www.501c3.org/what-is-a-501c3/. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    Widdicombe, Lizzie. “You Belong with Me.” The New Yorker, 3 Oct. 2011. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/taylor-swift-profile-you-belong-with-me.

    —. “You Belong with Me.” The New Yorker, 3 Oct. 2011. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/taylor-swift-profile-you-belong-with-me.

    WRITER, PAULA PETERS, STAFF. “Britney’s Summer Camp.” Cape Cod Times, https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2001/08/26/britney-s-summer-camp/50978170007/. Accessed 10 July 2024.

    “X.Com.” X (Formerly Twitter), https://x.com/SwiftyFrance/status/349881534850940928. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    “—.” X (Formerly Twitter), https://x.com/BritneyHiatus/status/1284911842129661953. Accessed 11 July 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Nikki Dobrin

    Source link

  • MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 07/16/2024

    MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 07/16/2024

    [ad_1]

    Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers who are either a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate, we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)

    Claim Codes: Red = Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other

    Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC

    TRUE Claim by Byron Donalds (R): Kamala Harris “co-sponsored, fully sponsored” the Green New Deal.

    PolitiFact rating: True (When senators introduced their version of the Green New Deal in February 2019, Harris was one of 11 Democrats who were original co-sponsors.)

    It’s True: Kamala Harris was an original backer of the Green New Deal

    BLATANT
    LIE
    Claim via Social Media: an account on X, formerly known as Twitter, has been linked to Pennsylvania rally shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks.

    Check Your Fact rating: False (The person in both the video and photo are not Crooks. The user who originally uploaded the photo and video claimed they were joke posts.)

    FACT CHECK: Viral Photo of Man is Not Trump Rally Shooter

    BLATANT
    LIE
    Claim via Social Media: Trump attends UFC fight after being shot.

    Lead Stories rating: False (He was taken to the hospital)

    Fact Check: Trump Did NOT Attend Ultimate Fighting Championship Bout With UFC President Dana White ‘After Being Shot’

    BLATANT
    LIE
    Claim via Social Media: Donald Trump staged the shooting at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

    PolitiFact rating: Pants on Fire (Nonsense)

    Claims that the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump was staged are baseless

    BLATANT
    LIE
    Claim via Social Media: The Secret Service agents shielding Donald Trump from gunfire were smiling.

    Australian Associated Press rating: False (The photo of the supposed smiling agents has been doctored.)

    Spoofed images spread after Trump rally shooting – Australian Associated Press

    FALSE (International: Nigeria): Nigeria accounts for 10% of the global number of maternal deaths

    Africa Check rating: Incorrect

    Nigeria accounts for 28.5% of the world’s maternal deaths, not 10% as claimed by campaign group

    Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact-checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Telegram: https://web.telegram.org/k/#-2229108524

    Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

    The Latest Factual News

    Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

    [ad_2] Media Bias Fact Check
    Source link

  • Fact-checking J.D. Vance’s first interview as Trump VP-pick

    Fact-checking J.D. Vance’s first interview as Trump VP-pick

    [ad_1]

    During the Republican National Convention’s opening night, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, spoke to Fox News for his first interview as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee.

    Sitting in the Fiserv Forum, the convention’s Milwaukee venue, Vance took questions from host Sean Hannity and addressed criticism about his previous comments on domestic violence, abortion and his 2016 disapproval of Trump.

    A couple of times, Vance accused the media of twisting controversial comments about violent marriages and abortion exemptions. We took a closer look at four of his claims.

    Vance mischaracterizes Biden’s stance on abortion

    Vance addressed his own and Trump’s position on abortion. He described Trump’s position “to let voters in states” decide abortion laws as “reasonable,” contrasting it with Biden’s. 

    “Donald Trump is running against a Joe Biden president who wants taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment of birth,” Vance said.

    This is False and misleads about how rarely abortions are performed later in pregnancy and who pays for them. 

    The vast majority of abortions in the U.S. — about 91% — occur in the first trimester. About 1% take place after 21 weeks, and far less than 1% occur in the third trimester and typically involve emergencies such as fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening medical emergencies affecting the mother.

    Biden has said he supported Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion and was overturned in June 2022, and wants federally protected abortion access. 

    Roe didn’t provide unrestricted access to abortion. It legalized abortion federally but also enabled the states to restrict or ban abortions once a fetus is viable, typically around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Exceptions to that time frame typically were allowed when the mother’s life or health was at risk.

    The Democratic-led Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021, which failed to pass the Senate, would have effectively codified a right to abortion while allowing for similar postviability restrictions as Roe.

    During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which says federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the woman’s life. However, the amendment has continued to be included in congressional spending bills. 

    Vance’s comments about women in violent marriages

    Hannity asked Vance to explain controversial 2021 comments about women staying in violent marriages. 

    “Both me and my mom actually were victims of domestic violence,” Vance told Hannity. “So, to say ‘Vance has supported women staying in violent marriages,’ I think it’s shameful for them to take a guy with my history and my background and say that that’s what I believe. It’s not what I believe. It’s not what I said.” 

    The comments in question came from a 2021 event Vance participated in at Pacifica Christian High School in California. In a conversation about his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” the event moderator asked Vance about his experience being raised by his grandparents, following his mother’s divorces and struggles with drug addiction. 

    “What is causing one generation to give up on fatherhood when the other one was so doggedly determined to stick it out even in tough times?” the moderator asked. 

    Vance talked about the economic effect of men losing manufacturing jobs then discussed his grandparents’ marriage. 

    In his memoir, Vance detailed his grandparents’ relationship and told a story about Vance’s grandmother pouring lighter fluid on his grandfather and striking a match after he came home drunk. She had previously threatened to kill her husband if he came home drunk again, according to a 2016 review of the book in The Washington Post. 

    Vance commended his grandparents for staying together, comparing it with younger generations. 

    “This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’ 

    “And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages.”

    In response to a 2022 Vice News story highlighting the comments, Jai Chabria, a strategist for Vance, said the media missed Vance’s point.

    “This is a comment that he made where he’s talking about how it’s important that couples stay together for the kids, that we actually have good kids first,” he said. “All he is saying is that it is far too often the case where couples get divorced, they split up and they don’t take the kids’ needs into consideration.”

    Vance’s comments about  rape, abortion and ‘inconvenience’

    Hannity asked Vance to discuss his position on abortion, allowing the senator to address his past comments that have been criticized. 

    “Let me go back to the issue of abortion,” Hannity said. “And there was this article that said ‘Oh, J.D. Vance said it’s inconvenient.”

    Vance told Hannity, “The Democrats have completely twisted my words. What I did say is that we sometimes in this society see babies as inconveniences, and I absolutely want us to change that.”

    We looked into comments Vance made on abortion while he was running for Senate in 2022 and his opponent claimed Vance had said that rape was inconvenient. We found that’s not directly what Vance said. 

    In a 2021 interview Vance was asked whether laws should allow women to get abortions if they were victims of rape or incest. He said society should not view a pregnancy or birth resulting from rape or incest as “inconvenient.” 

    “My view on this has been very clear and I think the question betrays a certain presumption that is wrong,” Vance said in 2021. “It’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it’s whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society. The question really, to me, is about the baby.”

    Vance on Biden’s opposition to busing to integrate schools

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Vance criticized Trump. Hannity asked Vance about his comments before bringing up Vice President Kamala Harris’ disagreements with Biden during the 2019 Democratic primary. 

    Hannity pointed to Harris’ contentious moment during a debate with Biden in which she criticized Biden’s opposition to busing students to integrate schools.

    “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me,” Harris said.

    “What she was referring to is the fact that Joe Biden had partnered with a former Klansman and tried to stop the integration of public schools,” Hannity said. “In Joe Biden’s words, he didn’t want those schools to become racial jungles.”

    Vance reiterated Hannity’s comments.

    “Kamala Harris basically said, ‘Joe Biden wouldn’t want a little black girl like me to live in her neighborhood.’ He also palled around with Klansmen,” Vance said. “She said this months before she joined his ticket Sean, I said some bad things about Donald Trump 10 years ago.”

    We previously rated a similar claim Half True. In a 1977 congressional hearing, Biden, then a senator from Delaware, described his opposition to federally mandated busing. 

    During the hearing he said, “Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions built so high that it is going to explode at some point.”

    Biden advocated for “orderly integration,” specifically of housing, and he supported many other aspects of desegregation and civil rights. But, as The New York Times reported, Biden also pushed an “anti-busing agenda into the early 1980s.”

    It’s unclear what Vance was referring to when he said Biden “palled around with Klansmen.” We have previously fact-checked a 2008 photo of Biden with former West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd.

    Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd renounced his views and publicly expressed his regret and shame over his involvement in the group.

    RELATED: J.D. Vance is Trump’s VP pick. His relationship with Trump, controversies and comments, fact-checked

    RELATED: 2024 RNC fact-check: Trump appears with Vance, allies talk economy on Day 1

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is Napalm Anyway and Who Invented It?

    What is Napalm Anyway and Who Invented It?

    [ad_1]

    You smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ‘em, one stinkin’ dink body. But that smell, that gasoline smell? The whole hill. Smelled like…victory.”

    These iconic words, spoken by the character of Lieutenant Colonel William Kilgore in 1979’s Apocalypse Now, are the stuff of film legend, and helped to cement in the minds of moviegoers our modern collective image of the Vietnam War. More than any other weapon, napalm has become inextricably linked with the war, symbolizing its wanton, industrialized cruelty and ultimate futility. But what is napalm, anyway? Who invented it, how does it work, and what is it about this weapon that made its creator disown his own invention and turned an entire anti-war movement against a single company? Well, load up your ‘Thud’ with a load of ‘snake and nape’, and let’s get some, shall we?

    Napalm emerged from a dramatic shift in U.S. strategy during the Second World War. In the 1930s, various air forces around the world developed the doctrine of precision strategic bombing, wherein heavy bomber aircraft would be used to carry out precision high-altitude strikes on key enemy infrastructure like factories, power plants, and railways. This would effectively cripple the enemy’s ability to wage war, bringing the conflict to a swift and decisive end. Military planners were confident that precision bombing would make wars cleaner, faster, and more humane, eliminating altogether the need for armies to meet on the battlefield.

    The outbreak of the Second World War, however, revealed this strategy to be fatally flawed. At the time precision bombing doctrine was developed, military strategists assumed that the new generation of all-metal monoplane bombers would be able to outrun and out-climb anything the enemy could throw at them, and that any remaining threats could be easily neutralized by arming the bombers with an array of defensive machine guns. Thus, it was believed, bombers would be able to attack their targets with near-impunity, inspiring the not-at-all-hubristic motto “The bomber will always get through.” By 1939, however, fighter and anti-aircraft artillery technology had advanced sufficiently that these once seemingly “untouchable” bombers were now sitting ducks, with the first British daylight raids against Nazi-occupied Europe suffering horrific casualties. In response, the British switched to a strategy of bombing at night. While this was effective at protecting bombers from enemy aerial defences, it also made it nearly impossible for bombardiers to accurately identify features on the ground, resulting in most bombs landing kilometres away from their intended targets. Realizing that their bombers were only useful against city-sized targets, the British once again switched tactics and developed the controversial doctrine of “area bombing.”

    Area bombing effectively obliterated the distinction between combatants and civilians which had defined previous wars. Rather than striking specific military targets, bombers would now target entire cities and towns. By destroying the homes of factory workers, the logic went, the enemy’s ability to produce war materiel could be crippled. Furthermore, repeated bombing would eventually break civilians’ will to fight, causing them to rise up against their government and sue for peace. As such widespread destruction could not easily be inflicted using conventional explosives, the British took to using incendiary weapons to set cities ablaze. In a procedure that the Royal Air Force perfected to a near-science, aircraft called pathfinders used precision navigation equipment to drop flares onto the middle of the target city, marking the drop point for the following bomber stream. The first wave of bombers would then drop heavy explosive charges called blockbusters to blow the roofs off buildings, allowing incendiary bombs dropped by subsequent waves to penetrate into the buildings’ flammable interiors. This strategy was used to devastating effect in July 1943 during the Operation Gomorrah raid on the German city of Hamburg. A combination of firebombing tactics and unusually dry weather led to the formation of a firestorm, a 460 metre tall vortex of flame that generated 45 kilometre-per-hour winds, sucking the air out of air raid shelters and sweeping citizens off their feet into the inferno. By the time the raid was over, 60% of the city had been destroyed and 40,000 citizens killed.

    When the United States entered the war in late 1941, they were initially horrified by British area bombing tactics and vowed to pursue precision daylight raids. Thus began the round-the-clock bombardment of Germany, with the USAAF bombing by day and the RAF by night. Soon, however, the Americans learned the same lesson the British had earlier in the war, as daylight bombing raids over heavily-defended German cities suffered ever-mounting losses. Eventually, the USAAF came around to the doctrine of area bombing, and began conducting joint firebombing raids alongside the British.

    Early in the war, U.S. bombers carried incendiary bombs similar in design to their British counterparts, fuelled by various mixtures of white phosphorus -which ignites on contact with air – magnesium, and thermite – a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium powder that burns at temperatures up to 2500 degrees Celsius. In 1944, however, a new type of incendiary bomb began appearing in USAAF depots, filled with a potent new substance called “napalm”. Napalm was invented in July 1942 by a team of Harvard University chemists led by Louis F. Fieser. While working for the National Defense Research Committee chemical weapons division, Fieser and his colleagues were tasked with investigating the potential military applications of divinyl acetylene, a synthetic drying oil used in paints and coatings. A series of industrial accidents had revealed that exposing this compound to oxygen could cause it to violently explode, making it a promising candidate for development into a new explosive. The team built a variety of experimental bombs filled with divinylacetylene and set them off using small gunpowder charges. As Fieser later noted, the results were intriguing:

    We noticed also that when a viscous gel burns it does not become fluid but retains its viscous, sticky consistency. The experience suggested the idea of a bomb that would scatter large burning globs of sticky gel.”

    This was not a new idea. Indeed, early in the war both the British and Americans had produced a number of simple molotov cocktail-style grenades consisting of glass bottles filled with gasoline, benzene, and white phosphorus. To thicken the mixture and make it stick better to a target, pieces of raw rubber were dissolved in the gasoline. This type of gasoline-rubber mixture was also used in the standard American air-dropped incendiary bomb, the M47. But, there was a problem: following their conquest of southeast Asia, the Empire of Japan controlled most of the world’s rubber supply, meaning Fieser and his team had to find an alternate means of thickening gasoline. After much experimentation, they hit upon a pair of compounds, aluminium naphthene and aluminium palmitate, which when mixed with gasoline produced a sticky, highly flammable gel. Fieser dubbed the mixture napalm, a contraction of the naphthene and palmitate thickening agents.

    On July 4, 1942, Fieser’s team tested their creation by detonating an M-47 bomb filled with napalm in the middle of a puddle in a soccer field outside Harvard’s football stadium – because, why not? As Fieser later recalled:

    The performance, from the start, was most impressive. The high explosive cuts the inner well into the ribbons and opens the casing down the entire length. Pieces of phosphorous are driven into the gel, and large, burning globs are distributed evenly over a circular area about 50 yards in diameter.”

    The U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service tested napalm at the Edgewood Technical Arsenal in Maryland and the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, where exact replicas of typical German and Japanese housing was built to evaluate various aerial weapons. Napalm performed exceptionally well, demonstrating numerous advantages over older incendiary weapons. Unlike thermite, magnesium, or oil-fuelled bombs, napalm scattered over a wide area and stuck firmly to the target, increasing the chances of ignition. And unlike white phosphorus, napalm could not spontaneously ignite, making it safer for ground crews to handle. Napalm also had applications outside of aerial warfare – especially in flamethrowers. While flamethrowers had been used during the First World War, the straight gasoline or diesel fuel they used tended to disperse rapidly, limiting their effectiveness. Napalm, however, formed a solid, concentrated stream when projected from flamethrowers, greatly enhancing their range and accuracy.

    Napalm was first deployed in flamethrowers on December 15, 1943 during the U.S. invasion of Papua New Guinea, where it proved highly effective against Japanese pillboxes and bunkers. Interestingly, when U.S. troops entered captured bunkers, they found dead Japanese soldiers without any burns. They soon determined that the main effect of flamethrowers was to flood the bunkers with carbon monoxide gas, killing the occupants instantly.

    Aerial napalm bombs were first used in Europe in December 1943 in Sicily and in the Pacific in 1944 during assaults on the islands of Ponhpei and Tinian. But the greatest and most devastating uses of napalm during the war would take place in 1945. On February 14 and 15 of that year, 1,299 RAF and USAAF aircraft dropped 3,900 tons of explosive and incendiary bombs – including 740 tons of napalm – on the German city of Dresden. As in Hamburg two years earlier, the bombings ignited a ferocious firestorm which consumed 6.5 square kilometres of the city and killed an estimated 25,000 people. The bombings also ignited a storm of controversy that rages to this day over whether Dresden was a vital enough target to justify such high civilian casualties, with many arguing that the operation constituted a war crime. But even this destruction would be dwarfed only one month later by Operation Meetinghouse, in which 279 USAAF bombers dropped 14,000 tons of M69 napalm cluster bombs on the Japanese capital of Tokyo. Unlike in Germany, Japanese cities were built mainly of wood, allowing the flames to spread out of control. The resulting firestorm destroyed nearly a quarter of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 people – more than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined – making Operation Meetinghouse the single deadliest air raid in history.

    After the war, the use of napalm spread around the world, the weapon being used in the Greek Civil War, French colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria, by dictator Fulgencio Batista against rebel forces in Cuba, and in the Korean War. Indeed, napalm was one of the favourite weapons of the U.S. forces in Korea, with 635,000 tons being dropped during the conflict – nearly four times the amount dropped on Japan during the entire Second World War. As in that war, however, the use of napalm in Korea proved controversial, with U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots being accused of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. For instance, on January 20, 1951, U.S. aircraft conducted a firebombing raid on a cave near Yongchoon, 144 kilometres southeast of Seoul, believing that North Korean forces were hiding inside. However, the cave was actually sheltering South Korean refugees, an estimated 300 of whom were killed in the attack. American pilots were reported as regularly firebombing groups of civilians on the suspicion they were harbouring North Korean infiltrators, while the current North Korean government claims that more than 8,000 civilians were killed during repeated U.S. napalm strikes on the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.

    No conflict, however, is more closely associated with napalm than the Vietnam War. The dense jungles of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia provided excellent cover for North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong troops, frustrating American and South Vietnamese efforts to locate and destroy enemy forces. Napalm proved an ideal weapon for clearing large areas of land, and was heavily deployed from February 1962 onwards. Between 1963 and 1973, more than 400,000 tons of napalm were dropped on Indochina, reaching peak use in April 1972. By this time, the weapon’s composition had changed, making it “napalm” in name only. This new composition, dubbed “Napalm B”, replaced the aluminium naphthate and palmitate thickeners with polystyrene, making it cheaper to manufacture and easier to ignite. It also burned for longer – up to 10 minutes compared to 15-30 seconds for the original composition.

    Yet for such a simple weapon, the effects of napalm were horrific. Due to its stickiness and high burning temperatures, napalm inflicted burns that were too deep and severe to heal. Medics treating victims of napalm attacks described burned flesh that looked like “swollen, raw meat” and eyelids so badly burned they could no longer be shut. As you might imagine, the highly-publicized nature of history’s first “television war” meant that images of these ghastly injuries soon reached the American public, sparking mass outrage. The first such images, which appeared in Ramparts magazine in January 1967, convinced civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. to publicly oppose the war, and triggered large student protests at the University of Wisconsin. But the photo that did the most to galvanize public opinion against napalm – and the war as a whole – was taken by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut on June 8, 1972. The photo, which won Ut a Pulitzer Prize and has become one of the most enduring images of the Vietnam War, shows a group of Vietnamese children – including 9-year-old Phan The Kim Phuc – fleeing the village of Trang Bang, which had just been firebombed by South Vietnamese aircraft. The photo inspired the popular protest slogan “NAPALM STICKS TO KIDS” and focused outrage on the main manufacturer of napalm: Midland, Michigan-based firm Dow Chemical.

    Ironically, Dow Chemical was ranked only 75th on a list of top U.S. military contractors, and prior to 1965 were mostly known as the manufacturers of Saran Wrap kitchen cling film. Thanks to napalm, however, they would quickly become one of the best-known corporations in the United States – and among the most hated. Anti-war activists protested outside Dow factories and spat on, attacked, and chased away Dow recruiters on college campuses, calling then “baby killers.” In response, Dow management first asked the Pentagon to take full responsibility for the use of napalm in Vietnam, absolving the company from blame. When this did nothing to quiet protests, the company briefly considered halting the production of napalm. After weighing the financial and moral risks, however, Dow decided that its main responsibility was to the government, and manufacture continued unabated. Instead, Dow embarked on a massive public relations campaign, releasing promotional films and pamphlets and stepping up recruitment efforts on campuses. Surprisingly, the campaign achieved some success; for many students, being interviewed by Dow Chemical was seen as an ironic “badge of honour”, and interviews actually increased over the next several years. But even after the company stopped producing napalm in 1969, the protests continued, the weapon and the company having become inextricably linked. Decades later, Dow would become embroiled in controversy once again over another one of its products: the herbicide Agent Orange, whose widespread use in Vietnam has been blamed for thousands of cases of birth defects and cancer.

    The use of napalm in the Vietnam War so disgusted its inventor, Louis Fieser, that in 1967 he revised his autobiography to remove all mention of his most famous creation. Yet despite this public relations disaster, napalm continued to be used around the world for decades. It was deployed by both sides during the Six-Day War in 1967 – including in Israel’s controversial attack on the U.S. spy ship USS Liberty – the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the Israeli-Lebanon war in the 1980s. It was used by Nigerian government forces against Biafran separatists in the 1960s, by Portuguese colonial forces in Angola in the 1970s, Argentine forces against the British during the 1982 Falklands War, and Serbian and Croatian forces during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s – among others. In 1980, however, continuing protests over its use led the United Nations to restrict the use of napalm and other incendiaries against personnel via Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which states:

    1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

     

    2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

     

    3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

     

    4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

    Due to such regulations and shifting military doctrine regarding collateral damage, the use of napalm and incendiaries by US forces has declined precipitously after Vietnam. As Matthew Evangelista, professor of History and Political Science at Cornell University explains:

    “The norms governing bombing – and particularly the harm it imposes on civilians – have evolved considerably over a century: from deliberate attacks against rebellious villagers by Italian and British colonial forces in the Middle East to institutionalized practices seeking to avoid civilian casualties in the U.S. counterinsurgency and antiterrorist wars of today. In between, the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II caused great civilian destruction through fire-bombing of cities and, ultimately, the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

    Nonetheless, napalm-style incendiaries continue to be used under limited circumstances. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, U.S. Marine Corps aircraft used incendiaries to ignite oil-filled trenches constructed by the Iraqis as an anti-invasion barrier, while in 2001and 2003 U.S. aircraft used incendiaries against Taliban forces in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, and during the invasion of Iraq. In all three cases the weapon used was not a traditional napalm canister but a 340-kilogram bomb called the Mark 77, which is filled with a mixture of kerosene, oxidizers, and white phosphorus. This composition is easier to ignite, harder to put out, and, according to the Pentagon, has less of an environmental impact that styrene-based napalm, which releases toxic and carcinogenic compounds as it burns.

    Yet despite this more limited doctrine for the use of incendiaries, American officials refrain from using the term “napalm” and refer to the weapons simply as “Mark 77s” – demonstrating that the Vietnam War continues to cast a long shadow over the United States military.

    Expand for References

    Guldner, Gregory & Knight, Curtis, Napalm Toxicity, Napalm Toxicity, National Library of Medicine, May 24, 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537127/

    Guillaume, Marine, Napalm in US Bombing Doctrine and Practice, 1942-1975, Sciences Pro, December 10, 2016, https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/napalm-us-bombing-doctrine-and-practice-1942-1975.html

    Napalm in War, Global Security, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/napalm-war.htm

    The Harvard Candle, https://web.archive.org/web/20121229112152/http://www.aggregat456.com/2011/03/harvard-candle.html

    Budanovic, Nikola, Liquid Fire – How Napalm Was Used in the Vietnam War, War History Online, June 1, 2016, https://www.warhistoryonline.com/vietnam-war/history-napalm-vietnam-war.html?safari=1

    Napalm and the Dow Chemical Company, American Experience, PBS, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/two-days-in-october-dow-chemical-and-use-napalm/

    Phuc Phan Thi, Kim, It’s Been 50 Years. I Am Not ‘Napalm Girl’ Anymore, The New York Times, June 6, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/opinion/kim-phuc-vietnam-napalm-girl-photograph.html

    [ad_2]

    Gilles Messier

    Source link

  • False Claim About Fake Secret Service Agent Contributes to Rally Conspiracy Theories – FactCheck.org

    False Claim About Fake Secret Service Agent Contributes to Rally Conspiracy Theories – FactCheck.org

    [ad_1]

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Posts from the anonymous online forum 4Chan have been spreading the false claim that Secret Service officials prevented an agent named “Jonathan Willis” from shooting former President Donald Trump’s attempted assassin. The Secret Service has no employee by that name, and the claim is “categorically false,” the agency said.


    Full Story

    Nobody by the name of Jonathan Willis is employed by the U.S. Secret Service, agency spokesman Nate Herring told us via email.

    But in the chaotic hours following the shooting at former President Donald Trump’s July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, an online post by an anonymous user who claimed to be “Jonathan Willis” began fueling nascent conspiracies about the shooting.

    It said, “My name is Jonathan Willis, I’m the officer in the famous photo of the two snipers on the roof at Trump’s rally. I came here to inform the public that I had the assassin in my sights for at least 3 minutes, but the head of the secret service refused to give the order to take out the perp. 100% the top brass prevented me from killing the assassin before he took the shots at president Trump.”

    The post, which originated on 4Chan — the anonymous forum best known for incubating the QAnon conspiracy theory — went up about eight hours after the shooting, when concrete information about the incident was scarce.

    About 20 minutes later, the same anonymous user posted this message: “I didn’t follow the orders though, as soon as the shooter opened on Trump I returned fire despite strict orders to not engage. I had eyes on the shooter for three minutes watching him fiddle with his rifle and adjust the scope, it was obvious he was a shooter yet I wasn’t allowed to engage. After I killed the shooter I was arrested, questioned by the FBI, and just released an hour ago. Already lost my job for not following orders, but I’m glad I took the shots anyway.”

    Screenshots of those posts quickly migrated to other social media platforms. One such post that has garnered more than 11 million views on X, for example, shared the 4Chan post with the message, “Big if true.” The same X account shared a video from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and quoted Jones as saying of the Secret Service response to the shooting, “That is not a failure of security; that is a stand down.”

    Similar posts have spread across other major social media platforms, too, including Facebook, TikTok and Instagram.

    Commenters on those posts have said things such as, “I smell a government cover up that failed and is out in the open!!!” Another called for the director of the Secret Service to be “charged for Treason.”

    But, as we said, the claims made on 4Chan were posted by an anonymous user, and the Secret Service doesn’t have any employees by the name of Jonathan Willis.

    Herring, the Secret Service spokesman, told us, “This claim is categorically false.”

    Secret Service snipers killed the shooter at the scene, and the FBI later identified him as Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. Three attendees were also shot — Corey Comperatore, 50, died, and David Dutch, 57, and James Copenhaver, 74, were injured.


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Herring, Nate. Spokesman, U.S. Secret Service. Email response to FactCheck.org. 15 Jul 2024.

    Dewey, Caitlin. “Absolutely everything you need to know to understand 4chan, the Internet’s own bogeyman.” Washington Post. 25 Sep 2014.

    Wendling, Mike. “QAnon: What is it and where did it come from?” BBC. 6 Jan 2021.

    Rigdon, Renée, et al. “Minute-by-minute: Visual timeline of the Trump assassination attempt.” CNN. 15 Jul 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Saranac Hale Spencer

    Source link

  • That Time Quaker Oats Fed Orphans Radioactive Oatmeal for Reasons…

    That Time Quaker Oats Fed Orphans Radioactive Oatmeal for Reasons…

    [ad_1]

    Ahh, a nice, warm bowl of oatmeal: could there be a more hearty or wholesome breakfast? Loaded with fibre, nutrients, and – if you’re feeling decadent – a dash of brown sugar – it’s the perfect way to start your day. Or so the big cereal companies and their cheery adverts would have you believe. But for a group of Massachusetts orphans in the 1940s and 50s, this breakfast of champions came with an extra, unexpected ingredient: a whopping dose of radiation. Unwitting guinea pigs in a secret study funded by Quaker Oats and MIT, these children were some of the thousands of victims of the most unethical decades of American medical research. This is the disturbing story of the Fernald State School Oatmeal Experiments.

    Our story begins at the Walter E. Fernald State School, located in Waltham, Massachusetts. Founded in 1888 as the Experimental School for Teaching and Training Idiotic Children, Fernald was the product of the American Eugenics Movement, which sought to improve the nation’s genetic stock – and society as a whole – by preventing those individuals seen as “defective” from breeding. Institutions like Fernald, of which there were nearly 100 across the United States, were designed to house, isolate – and, in certain cases, forcibly sterilize – children deemed to be “feeble-minded”.

    Tragically, nearly half of those committed to Fernald were not mentally disabled at all, achieving average scores on IQ tests. They were simply poor, uneducated children who had been orphaned or dumped at the school by parents who could not afford to take care of them. And “dumped” is the appropriate term; according to former resident Fred Boyce, who was admitted in 1949 at age 8 when his foster mother died:

    We thought for a long time that we belonged there, that we were not part of the species. We thought we were some kind of, you know, people that wasn’t supposed to be born…They [the state Government] didn’t have to look for homes for you, so they could just dump you off in these human warehouses and just let you rot, you know. That’s what they did. They let us rot.”

    Conditions were cramped and spartan; at its peak, the institution housed some 2,500 people, the children often being packed in 30 to a room. And to cut operating costs, the residents performed most of the manual labour around the school. As Michael d’Antonio, author of the book The State Boys’ Rebellion writes:

    The kids at Fernald raised the vegetables that they ate. They sewed the soles on the shoes that they wore. They manufactured the brooms that they used to sweep the floor.”

    Despite its name, very little education took place at Fernald State School – and what was provided was woefully inadequate:

    It was a school in name only. A child would experience the first year of school 5 or 6 times in a row. He would read the same ‘Dick and Jane’ reader, and never make any progress because the school wasn’t equipped to actually educate children. It was there as a sort of holding pen.”

    And then there was the abuse. Corporal punishment was a way of life at Fernald, freely meted out for the most minor of offences – or often none at all. According to former resident Joe Almeida, who was abandoned at the school by his parents at age 8, the staff held a regular event called “Red Cherry Day”, in which the children would sit in a circle and be called up alphabetically:

    And lucky me, my name is what? Almeida. You’d get up in front of all these kids, and you would pull down your pants. You’d pull down your underpants and they’d make you turn around and they’d whack your ass with this branch until it was red like a cherry…These people were sick that worked here.”

    And, as you would expect from such a power dynamic, sexual abuse was also rampant. Unsurprisingly, many children chose to rebel – often by running away. Those who were caught were sent to the school’s infamous Ward 22, where they were stripped naked and locked in solitary confinement for weeks on end.

    Then, in 1946, the school announced that it was creating a Science Club, whose members would be privy to all sorts of perks including extra oatmeal and milk for breakfast, gifts like Mickey Mouse watches, and tickets to Boston Red Sox games. Given their bleak nature of their everyday existence, residents signed up in droves. Those who still had parents received the following consent form from the school administration:

    Dear Parent:

    In previous years we have done some examinations in connection with the nutritional department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with the purposes of helping to improve the nutrition of our children and to help them in general more efficiently than before.

    For the checking up of the children, we occasionally need to take some blood samples, which are then analyzed. The blood samples are taken after one test meal which consists of a special breakfast meal containing a certain amount of calcium. We have asked for volunteers to give a sample of blood once a month for three months, and your son has agreed to volunteer because the boys who belong to the Science Club have many additional privileges. They get a quart of milk daily during that time, and are taken to a baseball game, to the beach and to some outside dinners and they enjoy it greatly.

    I hope that you have no objection that your son is voluntarily participating in this study. The first study will start on Monday, June 8th, and if you have not expressed any objections we will assume that your son may participate.

    Sincerely yours,

    Clemens E. Benda, M.D.

    Clinical Director

    What the letter failed to mention was that these “special breakfast meals” were laced with radioactive tracers- for the “science club” was in fact a cover for an MIT nutritional study conducted on behalf of the Quaker Oats Company. At the time, the company was eager to validate the nutritional value of its products. Recent studies suggested that the high levels of phytate found in oats inhibited the absorption of Iron – a problem which Quaker’s main hot-cereal rival, Cream of Wheat, did not have. Furthermore, both companies were facing increasing competition from sugary dry breakfast cereals, whose popularity was booming thanks to modern advertising techniques.

    Lasting from 1946 to 1956, the experiments at Fernald were largely conducted by MIT nutrition professor Robert Harris and PhD student Felix Bronner, whose research was funded through a “Quaker Oats Fellowship.” Over the course of the study, more than 100 residents of the school were fed oatmeal and milk laced with radioactive Iron-59 and Calcium-47, and received intravenous Calcium injections. These tracers allowed the movement of these elements throughout the body to be tracked using radiation detectors. To Quaker Oats’ delight, the study revealed that oatmeal was no worse at promoting iron absorption than Cream of Wheat. Harris and Bronner also discovered that calcium – both ingested and injected – is deposited straight into the bones. So the next time you see an advertisement claiming that milk helps build strong bones, know that this claim derives from non-consensual human experimentation.

    Indeed, while today the Fernald study would never pass a research ethics board review, it was hardly the only case of unethical human experimentation in the United States at the time – or even the worst. As we’ve covered in our previous videos That Time US Scientists Injected Plutonium Into People Without Their Knowledge and That Time the United States Tested Biological Warfare on its Own Citizens, the early Cold War period was something of a golden age for this kind of research, the unethical nature of which was typically justified in the name of national security. Nor was the Fernald study the only one conducted on a vulnerable, institutionalized population. For example, from the 1950s to the 1970s, hundreds of inmates at Philadelphia’s Holmesburg Prison were used as human guinea pigs to test the effects of various toxins, creams, detergents, and other products on their skin; while between 1946 and 1948, the United States Public Health Service infected 700 prostitutes, prison inmates, and psychiatric patients in Guatemala with syphilis, gonorrhoea, and chancroid in order to study the progress of these diseases. And, of course, there were the CIA’s infamous MKUltra experiments, in which thousands of unwitting subjects – including prisoners and psychiatric patients – were subjected to electroshock therapy, hallucinogenic drugs, and other forms of psychological torture in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to develop effective mind control, interrogation, and brainwashing techniques. According to John Lantos, an expert in medical ethics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and expert in medical ethics, such experiments were indicative of America’s post-war mindset:

    Technology was good, we were the leaders, we were the good guys, so anything we did could not be bad.”

    The tragic irony is that less than a decade before, the discovery of Nazi human experiments had led to the drafting of the Nuremberg Code, which stated that:

    The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”

    Despite this, after the war most American scientific institutions adopted ethical guidelines which required consent – but not informed consent. That is, subject simply had to agree to participate in an experiment; they didn’t have to be told the real purpose of said experiment or the potential risks or even exactly what was being done at all, such as we covered in our recent video Injecting People with Cancer Without Their Consent. It was not until 1953 that the National Institutes of Health created the first federal research ethics guidelines explicitly requiring informed consent; and not until 1974 that the Federal Government passed the National Research Act, establishing a national procedure for ethical review in medical research.

    But for many members of the Fernald Science Club, things were about to get significantly worse. By the 1960s, Eugenics had become a dirty word, and a de-institutionalization movement had begun to sweep the psychiatric field. Consequently, Fernald and other institutions began releasing all but their most severely disabled residents. However, no effort was made to re-integrate these residents into society, and with barely any education or useful skills, many struggled to to get by. Fred Boyce and Joe Almeida both left Fernald in 1960 at the age of 19, with Boyce joining the carnival circuit and touring around the country. In his 40s, Almeida felt himself drawn back to Fernald State School – now the Walter E. Fernald Development Center, where he worked as a driver for 20 years. As he later explained:

    I always felt like they owed me. I always felt that they owed me, because they took the most important thing of my life away. They took away my childhood and my education. The two things that you need in life to make it, they took from me.”

    All the while, however, Boyce, Almeida, and the other Science Club members remained unaware that they had been used as human guinea pigs. It was not until 1993, when Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary declassified a number of Atomic Energy Commission documents from the 1940s and 50s, that the truth about the experiments finally came out. On December 26 of that year the story was broken by the Boston Globe; soon other publications began urging victims to come forward.

    Upon learning of the experiments, Fred Boyce gathered together 30 of his fellow Fernald classmates and launched a class-action lawsuit against MIT, Quaker Oats, and the United States Government. Meanwhile, Senator Edward Kennedy chaired a hearing before the Senate’s Committee on Labor and Human Resources to investigate the Fernald experiments. Questioning Constantine Maletskos, one of the study’s organizers, Kennedy asked why the study had been conducted on institutionalized orphans instead of MIT students:

    Aren’t you appalled at the fact that the most vulnerable people in our society, which are young people, 7, 8 years old, that are in an institution, aren’t you appalled that they were the ones selected?”

    Maletskos claimed that he and his colleagues were following the ethical guidelines of the time, and that the choice of subjects was scientifically necessary:

    Because in all of these experiments, you have to have control of the subjects. You just can’t let them walk around; you have to collect 100 percent of the excretions, you have to see that they’re eating properly, and all this kind of thing. Unless you do it that way, you’re not going to have a good experiment.”

    And as for the “Science Club” aspect of the study, Maletskos denied that it was any kind of ruse:

    It was an afterthought, as I gather—that somebody was talking about: “It would be nice [to do something for them because] these kids have been involved, we’ve had to jab them, and they had to eat a meal—every little drop of it, because you wanted to be sure they got 100 percent of the radioactivity— wouldn’t it be nice to do something for them?”’ 

    Also called to testify was J. David Litster, Dean of Research at MIT, who was questioned about the health effects of the radioactive tracers the study’s subjects were made to ingest. Litster revealed that the tracers had exposed the children to between 170-330 milligrams of radiation – equivalent to receiving 30 consecutive chest x-rays. This kind of dose, he explained, would have given the children a 1 in 2,000 chance of developing cancer – barely higher than the national average. Indeed, a 1994 Massachusetts state panel confirmed that none of the students had developed any health conditions that could be directly traced to the radioactive isotopes used in the Fernald study.

    But for Fred Boyce, Joe Almeida, and the other Fernald students, their lawsuit was less about radioactivity than the unethical nature of the study. And while MIT claimed that the study followed the ethical guidelines of the time, and Quaker Oats denied it played little direct role in the research – contributing some cereal and a small research grant – in 1998 both decided to settle out of court, paying the plaintiffs $60,000 in compensation. It was a small victory, but one which helped bring some justice and closure to one of the darkest periods in American science.

    Bonus Facts:

    Speaking of sadistic individuals and institutions and breakfast foods, the first modern, designated breakfast cereal (forms of porridge aside) was invented in 1863 by a vegetarian Christian abolitionist doctor named James Caleb Jackson. Created for his sanatorium patients as a healthy start to the day, it was comprised of crumbled, twice baked graham flour (which is essentially a type of non-bleached, “all-natural” finely ground whole wheat flour) and bran (hard outer layer of the grain), he called “granula”. The end product resembled a much harder version of modern Grape-Nuts, but with significantly larger nuggets. Jackson’s granula was reportedly so hard that it needed to be soaked in liquid for at least 20-30 minutes before it could be comfortably bitten into it.

    In the 1870s, Dr. John Kellogg ran his own sanatorium in Battle Creek, Michigan and was known for his very strange, sometimes sadistically abusive methods, including electrically shocking children’s genitals, applying forms of acid to them, removal of the clitoris in females, and circumcising males- all to attempt to prevent masturbation and sexual urges. (Interestingly, the latter male circumcision treatment as something commonly performed in America actually hails from this era; the modern non-Jewish / non-Islamic practice of foreskin removal was not really a thing in the Western world until it began to be seen as a way to prevent masturbation.). In any event, Dr. Kellogg visited Jackson’s retreat and was most impressed with his granula. So impressed, in fact, that he ripped off the idea, creating his own version of it made of wheat, corn, and ground oats. He uninventively called it “granula”… As a result, Jackson sued and Kellogg was forced to rename his cereal “granola.”

    A few years later, a failed Battle Creek suspender salesman named Charles W. Post partially knocked off Kellogg’s product and started selling an exceptionally similar “granola” product he called Grape-Nuts, claiming it could make one’s “red blood redder.”

    As with Jackson, Kellogg and Post both pushed this food item as an ideal, healthy food to start the day with, setting the trend that has continued through today for this line of product.

    Between Kellogg and Post, at the turn of the 20th century, Battle Creek became a battle ground for two companies that would come to define the world of breakfast cereal. For instance, legend has it that due to a mishap making a batch of the original version of Graham crackers (originally created by Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham as a way to curb sexual urges, and particularly the urge to masturbate), John Kellogg and his brother Will invented a product they unimaginatively dubbed “Corn Flakes”. Post was a little more flamboyant, naming his version of the same thing “Elijah’s Manna”- meant as a striking allusion to the biblical story about the food that saved the wandering, starving Israelites. With the famed prophet sitting on a rock and hand feeding a raven on the front of the box, Elijah became the first cereal mascot. However, fairly quickly, religious groups protested and Post changed the name to “Post Toasties.”

    Ultimately the Kellogg brothers split over Will Kellogg’s decision to recommend adding sugar to Corn Flakes to help it sell better, something Dr. John Kellogg found borderline blasphemous as such a thing, in his opinion, encouraged sexual excitement. The two parted ways with Will founding the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company, which went on to become the now billion dollar Kellogg corporation (which besides their tasty flakes was soon to also introduce another breakfast staple- Rice Krispies). His brother John Kellogg stuck to his original principles and continued to dedicate his life to ridding the world of such evils as masturbation…

    Now, given the ladies of the house at this time tended to be the ones who decided what the family would eat, during the first few decades of the 20th century, cereal advertising was primarily aimed at housewives. Kellogg’s told women to wink at their grocer and see what they got (answer: a box of Corn Flakes). Quaker Oats likewise sponsored radio dramas and mid-day radio shows aimed at housewives. Post told moms that bringing up kids on their cereals would help them later in life.

    In the late 1930s, as breakfast cereal became more established and commonly purchased anyway, cereal companies started thinking it might be best to skip the middlewoman, instead marketing directly to children, who presumably would pester their mothers for which cereal they wanted. For instance, in 1936, a “Dennis the Menace”-like character named Skippy was used to specifically market Wheaties to children.

    The problem here is that children tend to not like straight bran or wheat… but they do love sugar. In 1939, the first pre-sugared cereal was produced, called Ranger Joe Wheat Honnies. Ironically, the product was actually an effort by the creator to minimize how much additional sugar kids commonly put on their cereal by including a relatively small, regulated amount already. But instead of curbing the practice of over-sugaring cereal, it eventually resulted in the opposite, starting with Post copying Ranger Joe Wheat Honnies with their own version called Sugar Crisp in 1949; thanks to a major breakfast cereal producer now making such a pre-sugared product, the rest of the industry followed suit.

    By the 1960s, cereal companies were devoting approximately 90% of their advertising budgets to directly appealing to individuals of the youthful persuasion. This is why it was so common today to have “prizes” in the cereal box, tie-ins with movies, video games, and TV shows, and products called Sprinkles Spangle and Ice Cream Cone Cereal. On that note, this is also why adding more and more sugar to breakfast cereal became a thing.

    As for widespread claims by the manufacturers that these cereals are “part of a complete breakfast,” technically the cereal companies are not lying here. Unsurprisingly given that the three primary nutrient groups, known as macronutrients, that humans need to survive are carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, according to the American Chemical Society, a healthy breakfast should consist of mostly carbohydrates and proteins. Shocker, I know.

    And, indeed, cereal, even if it’s simply a bowl of pure sugar, constitutes carbs. So these products can indeed technically be considered an essential part of a complete breakfast, just perhaps not an advisable one given the vast majority are essentially candy cleverly marketed to appear nutritious, often complete with a giant label on the side showing all the vitamins added to the product… along with tiny recommended serving sizes that nobody even comes close to following to mask the absolute massive number of calories and sugar most real-world servings of the products contain. But to be fair, combined with certain other breakfast items, in extreme moderation this staple of the breakfast world could potentially be useful if one leads a very physically active life, instead of just rolling out of bed only to very soon after sit at a desk all day and then come home and sit on the couch until bedtime.

    On that note, perhaps those sedentary, wealthy aristocrats of old were on to something in choosing to skip the morning meal. And for those who led a heavily manual labored life, it is perhaps no surprise that some form of grain-based morning meal seems to have been the choice people made throughout most of recorded history- easy to quickly eat and comprised of a mix of simple and complex carbs to provide both quick and relatively longer lasting stores of energy, all while avoiding too much protein and fat which, while otherwise essential for life and important for things like maintaining muscle mass, might not sit well when eating mostly that in the morning and then jumping right into hard labor.

    Expand for References

    Boissoneault, Lorraine, A Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Radioactive Oatmeal Go Down, Smithsonian Magazine, March 8, 2017, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spoonful-sugar-helps-radioactive-oatmeal-go-down-180962424/

    Leung, Rebecca, America’s Deep, Dark Secret, CBS News, April 29, 2004, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-deep-dark-secret/

    Radioactive Oatmeal Suit Settled for $1.85 Million, The Washington Post, December 31, 1997, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/01/01/radioactive-oatmeal-suit-settled-for-185-million/93894a5a-5844-4544-aca2-ffe4e52030b3/

    Kasprak, Alex, Did Quaker Oats Fund MIT Research That Fed Radioactive Cereal to Kids? Snopes, June 17, 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fernald-quaker-oats/

    Crockett, Zachary, The Dark Secret of the MIT Science Club for Children, Priceonomics, https://priceonomics.com/the-mit-science-club-for-disabled-children/

    [ad_2]

    Gilles Messier

    Source link

  • Posts Use Altered Image of Secret Service Agents Following Trump Shooting – FactCheck.org

    Posts Use Altered Image of Secret Service Agents Following Trump Shooting – FactCheck.org

    [ad_1]

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    The actions of the Secret Service at the Pennsylvania rally where former President Donald Trump was wounded in an assassination attempt are under review. But social media posts show an altered photo to falsely claim agents were smiling while moving Trump to safety. The original Associated Press photo shows the agents weren’t smiling.


    Full Story

    President Joe Biden has called for an independent review and members of Congress plan an investigation into security measures taken — particularly by the Secret Service — at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where former President Donald Trump was wounded in an attempted assassination.

    The Secret Service, whose duties include the protection of the president, is being questioned regarding preparations for the event, the size of the security perimeter and how the shooter, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, was able to get access to a rooftop near the rally stage. Crooks, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, was killed by Secret Service snipers at the scene. One man attending the rally was killed, and two others were injured during the shooting, Pennsylvania State Police said.

    Video of the assassination attempt shows Trump addressing the crowd and reacting as a bullet strikes him in the ear, followed by Secret Service agents surrounding him and slowly helping him up and off the stage. Before being moved off the stage, Trump can be seen raising a fist in the air.

    That image of Trump’s gesture has been altered, however, in social media posts to falsely show two of the agents smiling as they assisted Trump and to claim the incident was “STAGED.”

    A July 14 Threads post shows the altered image with a caption that says, “Why are the secret service smiling? STAGED.”

    A video in a July 14 Instagram post shows several photos from the shooting — including two versions of the image of Trump with his fist raised as the agents help him. One accurately shows the agents with concerned expressions on their faces, and the other, altered image shows them smiling. The narrator of the video claims, “Something doesn’t look right. … Is it fake?”

    What is fake is the altered image of the Secret Service agents smiling.

    The original image showing Trump raising his fist as the agents move him off the stage was taken by Associated Press photographer Evan Vucci, whose photos in the immediate aftermath of the shooting were published by the AP on July 14. The caption on the original photo reads: “Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump is surrounded by U.S. Secret Service agents at a campaign rally, Saturday, July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).”

    The social media posts use a doctored version of that AP photo to make the false claim about the agents. The original photo shows the agents with concerned looks on their faces.

    Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle issued a statement on July 15 about the actions of agents on the scene in Butler and the investigation of the incident. Cheatle said, in part: “Secret Service personnel on the ground moved quickly during the incident, with our counter sniper team neutralizing the shooter and our agents implementing protective measures to ensure the safety of former president Donald Trump.”

    “The Secret Service is working with all involved Federal, state and local agencies to understand what happened, how it happened, and how we can prevent an incident like this from ever taking place again. We understand the importance of the independent review announced by President Biden yesterday and will participate fully. We will also work with the appropriate Congressional committees on any oversight action,” Cheatle also said. 


    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Associated Press. “AP PHOTOS: Shooting at Trump rally in Pennsylvania.” Updated 14 Jul 2024.

    Associated Press. “Video captures shooting at Trump rally.” 13 Jul 2024.

    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. “Pennsylvania State Police Identify Victims Shot During Attempted Assassination of Former President Trump.” 14 Jul 2024.

    Kanno-Young, Zolan, et al. “Secret Service Under Scrutiny After Assassination Attempt on Trump.” New York Times. 14 Jul 2024.

    Tolan, Casey. “What we know about the Trump rally gunman so far.” CNN 14 Jul 2024.

    Tsirkin, Julie, et al. “Congress demands answers from Secret Service after Trump assassination attempt.” NBC News. 14 Jul 2024.

    United States Secret Service. About Us. “Protecting Leaders.” Accessed 15 Jul 2024.

    United States Secret Service. “Statement From U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle.” 15 Jul 2024.

    Wild, Whitney, Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. “Secret Service faces serious questions about security footprint and rooftop access at Trump Event.” CNN. 15 Jul 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Alan Jaffe

    Source link

  • Yes, Trump’s Alleged Would-Be Assassin Was a Republican

    Yes, Trump’s Alleged Would-Be Assassin Was a Republican

    [ad_1]

    Claim:

    Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who allegedly tried to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, was a registered Republican.

    Rating:

    Context

    As of this writing, the motives of the alleged would-be assassin, who was killed on the scene by law enforcement officers, are unknown, and it remains to be seen if his political affiliations are relevant. Pennsylvania holds “closed” primary elections, in which only voters registered with a party can vote in that party’s primaries. In such states, someone might register with a party not because they agree with its values, but because they want to weigh in on that party’s nominees for each elected post. Also, there have also been reports the shooter donated to ActBlue, a political action committee that supports the Democratic Party and left-leaning causes.

    In July 2024, as internet users and political pundits speculated about the motives of the man who allegedly attempted to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, claims circulated on social media that he was a registered Republican:

    This X post (archived) had garnered more than 1.9 million views as of this writing, as well as roughly 69,000 likes, 5,000 replies and 10,000 shares. The claim also appeared on RedditFacebook and Instagram.

    The claim is true. Using his name (Thomas Matthew Crooks), date of birth and the fact that we knew he was from Bethel Park, we found his voter registration status on Pennsylvania’s Department of State website. He was indeed registered as a Republican. In this screenshot, we redacted his home address and date of birth to protect the privacy of his family and neighbors:

    (Pennsylvania Department of State)

    This information has been widely confirmed by many reputable news outlets, including NBC News, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

    It’s important to know that Pennsylvania holds “closed” primary elections, in which only voters registered with a party can vote in that party’s primaries. In such states, someone might register with a party not because they agree with its values, but because they want to weigh in on that party’s nominees for each elected post.

    The motives of the would-be assassin were still unclear as of this writing. There have also been reports the shooter donated to ActBlue, a political action committee that supports the Democratic Party and left-leaning causes.

    Sources

    Davies, Emily, et al. ‘Trump Rally Shooter Appears to Have Acted Alone, FBI Says’. Washington Post, 15 July 2024. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/14/thomas-matthew-crooks-trump-shooting-suspect/.

    Robertson, Campbell, et al. ‘Here’s What Is Known About the Suspect Who Tried to Assassinate Trump’. The New York Times, 14 July 2024. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html.

    State Primary Election Types. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types. Accessed 15 July 2024.

    ‘Trump Rally Shooter Identified as 20-Year-Old Pennsylvania Man’. NBC News, 15 July 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-rally-shooter-identified-rcna161757.

    [ad_2]

    Anna Rascouët-Paz

    Source link

  • (Media News) Meta Lifts All Restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram Accounts

    (Media News) Meta Lifts All Restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram Accounts

    [ad_1]

    On Friday, Meta removed all restrictions on former President Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, enabling him to fully resume his social media activities ahead of the November election. Trump’s accounts were suspended in January 2021 following the Capitol Riots, where his perceived role in inciting the violence led to the ban.

    Meta’s independent Oversight Board initially recommended more definitive rules for Trump’s suspension, resulting in a two-year framework for future decisions. Now, Meta has confirmed Trump’s accounts are fully reinstated.

    Meta explained their decision, stating, “With the party conventions taking place shortly, including the Republican convention this week, the candidates for President of the United States will soon be formally nominated. In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis. As a result, former President Trump, as the nominee of the Republican Party, will no longer be subject to the heightened suspension penalties.”

    This reinstatement means Trump’s posts will be treated like any other user’s under Meta’s Community Standards. Despite his ties to Truth Social, Trump’s return to Facebook could be impactful, given his campaign’s previous heavy spending on Facebook ads, with over $20 million spent in 2019 alone.

    Currently, Trump’s Facebook promotions focus on his upcoming appearances and campaign donations. However, in previous elections, he used Facebook and Instagram to target specific groups with divisive statements to mobilize voters.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Telegram: https://web.telegram.org/k/#-2229108524

    Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 23.1K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 07/15/2024

    MBFC’s Daily Vetted Fact Checks for 07/15/2024

    [ad_1]

    Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers who are either a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate, we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)

    Claim Codes: Red = Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other

    Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC

    TRUE Claim via Social Media: Project 2025 recommends military entrance exam for public school students.

    10TV rating: True (Project 2025 recommends military exam for public school students.)

    Project 2025 recommends military entrance exam for some students

    FALSE Claim via Social Media: The COVID-19 vaccinated will pay more or be ineligible for life insurance.

    USA Today rating: False (There’s no evidence life insurance rates or eligibility are affected by getting COVID-19 vaccines. There’s no data to show COVID-19 vaccines are causing harm, which would be needed for them to affect life insurance rates.)

    COVID-19 vaccine does not limit access to life insurance | Fact check

    FALSE Claim via Social Media: “Every single McDonald’s french fry comes exclusively from potatoes grown on Bill Gates-owned farmland.”

    PolitiFact rating: False (One farm that supplies potatoes to McDonald’s is owned by Bill Gates, the philanthropist and Microsoft Corp. co-founder, but it is not the sole supplier. The company’s websites in the U.S. and elsewhere list other potato suppliers.)

    No, McDonald’s french fries don’t all come from potatoes grown on Bill Gates’ farms

    BLATANT
    LIE
    Claim via Social Media: About 25% of the U.S. federal budget goes to foreign aid each fiscal year.

    KGW rating: False (It is around 1%)

    No, 25% of the annual U.S. federal budget does not go to foreign aid

    MOSTLY
    TRUE
    Claim by Joe Biden (D): In 2020, nine NATO members reached an alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense, and that number rose to 23 members in 2024, recent NATO data shows.

    PolitiFact rating: Mostly True (In 2020, nine NATO members spent at least 2% of their annual gross domestic product on defense, according to NATO data. In 2024, 23 NATO members will spend at least 2% of their GDP to build up their defenses, recent NATO data shows.)

    Joe Biden’s Mostly True claim about growth of NATO countries hitting 2% of GDP on defense

    Joe Biden Rating

    FALSE (International: France): A group of 50 people protested a French supermarket’s card-only policy, causing the store to reinstate cash payments.

    Full Fact rating: False (It is against the law for businesses to refuse cash in France in most circumstances, and there is no evidence this protest occurred.)

    French stores cannot legally refuse cash – Full Fact

    Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact-checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Media_Bias_Fact_Check/

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Telegram: https://web.telegram.org/k/#-2229108524

    Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mbfcnews/

    The Latest Factual News

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 23.1K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • Trump attack prompts tide of wild claims

    Trump attack prompts tide of wild claims

    [ad_1]

    MILWAUKEE — The 2024 Republican National Convention opens Monday with the unprecedented and grisly backdrop of its presumptive nominee having survived an assassination attempt. 

    Former President Donald Trump arrived for the convention in Wisconsin Sunday, a day after a shooter fired a bullet that Trump said struck him in the upper ear just minutes into a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Authorities say the suspect, Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, shot and killed Corey Comperatore, a former volunteer fire chief, and critically injured two more attendees before the Secret Service returned fire and killed him.

    Twenty-four hours later, Crooks’ motive remained unknown. Members of Congress joined prominent social media accounts in filling the void with evidence-free assertions about what inspired the suspect and his political beliefs.

    In an Oval Office address Sunday evening, President Joe Biden pleaded for Americans to “lower the temperature” of their politics, saying political differences should be resolved at the ballot box.  

    Trump decided to keep his plans and fly here Sunday, saying he did not want to let a “potential assassin” delay his arrival. 

    There are many unanswered questions. 

    On Trump’s to-do list heading into the RNC was revealing his running mate. With the assassination attempt dominating the news and the mood, will Trump reveal a name? Will Trump speak? We’re waiting to see how the assassination attempt will influence the lineup and the themes. 

    Social media platforms flooded with ‘staged’ claims 

    Conspiracy theories that the assassination attempt on Trump was staged flooded the internet almost immediately after the shooting suspect opened fire. 

    “Donald Trump continues to play in our faces!! This was SO staged!!! If someone REALLY wanted to take him out, they wouldn’t use a BB Gun!!” one person posted on X a little more than an hour after the shooting. 

    Some social media users even falsely claimed that Trump faked the blood coming from his ear with a “blood pill.” 

    The “staged” claims are Pants on Fire. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an assassination attempt. It was witnessed by thousands of rally attendees, including dozens of news photographers and reporters.

    Secret Service personnel shot and killed Crooks, the suspected shooter, shortly after he opened fire, the agency said. Law enforcement officials recovered an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle from a nearby building’s roof, according to The New York Times.

    Law enforcement officials continued to investigate a potential motive the day after the shooting.

    The shooter, the U.S. Secret Service said, fired multiple rounds from an “elevated position outside of the rally venue”; social media photos showed a body on a roof. Trump had blood trickling down his face as agents rushed him offstage, the agency said. Trump later said on Truth Social that the bullet hit the upper part of his right ear.

    Innocent people wrongly identified as the shooter online 

    It took officials until the early hours of July 14 to release the suspected gunman’s identity. The internet quickly amassed dubious information.

    As people worldwide flocked to platforms such as X and TikTok to learn the latest on the assassination attempt, they found a flurry of suspect names that were purportedly confirmed, along with photos that were anything but legitimate.

    One Italian sports blogger found his words and likeness transformed into something false and malicious. 

    “The #Trump shooter, Mark Violets, has been killed. He uploaded a video on YouTube before the attack, claiming ‘justice was coming.’ Well justice came for nobody but himself,” one Facebook post said.

    This was Pants on Fire. The man in the video had nothing to do with shooting. Marco Violi posted a statement in Italian on Instagram denying involvement in the shooting.

    “I’m in Italy, I’m in Rome and I didn’t have the slightest idea what happened,” Violi said according to Instagram’s translation of the post.

    None of Violi’s posts on Instagram over the past few months has mentioned Trump or U.S. politics.

    On Meta’s Threads platform, a user claimed to have information on the shooter. “Trump Rally Shooter has been identified as 32 year old, California resident, Hank Pecker,” the text in the photo read.

    This, too, was Pants on Fire. This time, a reverse-image search showed that the Threads post’s photo was uploaded in February 2022 by Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. According to Dot Esports, an esports and gaming news site, Piker has roleplayed a “gun-loving, self-proclaimed libertarian” character named Hank Pecker in his videos.

    One more: Social media posts quickly claimed to reveal the portrait of the suspect, showing the side profile of a long-haired blond man wearing a blue shirt and eyeglasses.

    The man can be seen in a video claiming responsibility for the attack. “My name is Thomas Matthew Crooks,” he said. “I hate Republicans, I hate Trump and guess what, you got the wrong guy.”

    Pants on Fire. The man in the video is not Crooks. The photos and video surfaced online several hours after officials confirmed the real shooting suspect was dead.

    Yes, some Democrats wanted to strip Trump’s Secret Service protection

    Country musician Travis Tritt, Arizona U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., accused Democrats of weakening Trump’s protection and risking his safety.

    “Just this congress,” eight Democratic House members “all cosponsored legislation to TERMINATE Trump’s Secret Service protection,” Greene tweeted July 13.

    This is accurate and relates to Trump’s criminal cases.

    In April, Democratic Reps. Troy A. Carter Sr. of Louisiana, Barbara Lee of California, Frederica Wilson of Florida, Yvette D. Clarke of New York, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and Steve Cohen of Tennessee co-sponsored H.R. 8081, a measure that would have redefined who qualifies for Secret Service protection, saying it would “terminate for any person upon sentencing following conviction for a federal or state offense that is punishable for a term of imprisonment of at least one year.”

    That would have covered Trump, and the bill’s title — “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act,” or “DISGRACED Former Protectees Act” — was clearly directed at Trump, who was convicted in New York City for falsifying business records at the time. The jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts.

    The way it was written, the bill would have lumped together all types of recipients of Secret Service protection, without distinguishing between former presidents and current presidential candidates, which are both categories that include Trump.

    The legislation stalled following its introduction, and the vast majority of Democratic House members did not co-sponsor it.

    Baseless claims that ‘Biden sent the orders’

    Before many facts about the shooter were known, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., said “Joe Biden sent the orders” to assassinate Trump. 

    There is zero evidence that Biden ordered Trump’s assassination.

    In his post, Collins cited a post by Steve Guest, who identifies himself in his account as a “conservative communicator.” Guest’s post said, “Joe Biden on 7.8.2024: “We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

    This refers to remarks reported by CNN in a July 8 call to donors. CNN described its source as “a recording of the call obtained by CNN from a participant not authorized to release it.”

    According to CNN, Biden said it was time to turn his own and the nation’s focus from his debate performance June 27, which many pundits and politicos panned. 

    “We’re done talking about the debate,” Biden said, according to CNN. “It’s time to put Trump in the bull’s-eye. We can’t go another day, another day, without explaining what he’s doing, and we have to go after him.”

    This quote is focused on controlling the campaign’s message and does not demonstrate that Biden “sent the orders” to assassinate Trump. 

    The X account of the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee amplified the same Biden quote but didn’t go as far as Collins did in saying Biden ordered the assassination. The committee’s post said, “Joe Biden: ‘It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.’ That just happened.”

    On July 14, the day after the attempted assassination, Biden, in brief remarks, said, “I’ve been consistent in my direction with the Secret Service to provide (Trump) with every resource capability and protective measure necessary to ensure his continued safety.”

    Where was Biden when the shooting happened? When did he respond?

    Immediately after the attempted assassination, some social media users asked where Biden was and whether he would speak.

    “Where is Biden? Where is the White House? Why have the American people not heard from the President?” Michael Markey Jr., the Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Michigan, asked 7:22 p.m. ET on X.

    “What is Joe Biden doing?” Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports asked in a X video at 7:47p.m. ET. 

    Reports from journalists who travel with the president said Biden arrived at 5:43 p.m. ET at St. Edmond Catholic Church in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

    The president was spending the weekend at his second home and celebrating Saturday evening Mass, according to the journalists’ reports.

    The U.S. Secret Service said the shooting occurred at approximately 6:15 p.m. ET.

    The president came out of the church at 6:19 p.m., according to a pool report a traveling journalist filed at 6:23 p.m. It said reporters asked Biden whether he had been briefed on the shooting; he said “no,” the report said. 

    Biden headed to his Delaware home from church. At 6:45 p.m., the journalist’s report said, the president received an initial briefing on the shooting. The White House released a statement from the president and at 8:13 p.m., Biden spoke from the Rehoboth Beach Police Department.

    After speaking to Trump, Biden returned to the White House at 12:37 a.m. July 14, according to the journalist’s report.

    We’re taking you behind the scenes

    What questions do you have about the Republican National Convention? What claims are you still wondering about from the Trump rally attack? 

    Our team is here to track down answers to your questions and hold leaders accountable. (Next month, we’ll do it all again at the DNC.) 

    Email me at [email protected].

    Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson and Staff Writers Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu, Samantha Putterman, Maria Ramirez Uribe and Loreben Tuquero contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anthony Bourdain Once Said, ‘The World Has Visited Many Terrible Things on the Palestinian People’?

    Anthony Bourdain Once Said, ‘The World Has Visited Many Terrible Things on the Palestinian People’?

    [ad_1]

    Claim:

    Anthony Bourdain once said, “The world has visited many terrible things on the Palestinian people, none more shameful than robbing them of their basic humanity.”

    Rating:

    On June 29, 2024, X user @zei_squirrel made a post (archived) sharing a video purporting to show celebrity chef, author, television personality Anthony Bourdain, who died in 2018, expressing sympathy and admiration for Palestinians.

    In the body of the post, @zei_squirrel included a transcription of a quote that begins at the video’s 00:45 timestamp: “The world has visited many terrible things on the Palestinian people, none more shameful than robbing them of their basic humanity.”

    At the time of this writing, @zei_squirrel’s post had received around 10,000 reposts and 33,000 likes.

    The quote and the video of Bourdain delivering it are both authentic. The original source is an acceptance speech Bourdain made in 2014, when the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) recognized him as a “voice of courage and conscience” at the organization’s 2014 Media Awards. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on the award at the time and included a transcription of Bourdain’s acceptance speech in their coverage. As a result, Snopes has rated this claim as “Correct Attribution.”

    Bourdain did not accept the MPAC award in person. Instead, the organization played his pre-recorded acceptance speech for attendees at the ceremony, which took place on May 18, 2014. Two days later, on May 20, 2014, the organization made the video available to the general public through its official YouTube page.

    As is also the case for the version of the video @zei_squirrel shared on X, the quote in question can be found at 00:45 timestamp of the version posted by MPAC’s official YouTube account, which is embedded above.

    The reason for the 2014 award was Bourdain’s handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict in an episode of Bourdain’s television show, “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown,” which aired on CNN from 2013 until 2018. “Jerusalem,” the episode MPAC singled out for an award, first aired in September 2013 and featured Bourdain visiting restaurants, private homes, and a refugee camp in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. A short video clip featuring highlights from the episode was shared on MPAC’s YouTube page in May 2014.

    Although the full MPAC video of Bourdain’s full speech has been available on YouTube since 2014, the quote appears to have gone viral in 2024 thanks to the reemergence of a version edited and produced by AJ+, which is part of the Al Jazeera Media Network and is described on its website as “a unique, global digital news and storytelling brand dedicated to human rights and equality.”

    AJ+ first shared its version of the video, which begins with the quote investigated here, via the organization’s X account on June 8, 2018, the day news broke of Bourdain’s death at age 61.

    On the same day, the outlet also shared a version of the quote in image form.

    The AJ+ version of the video differs from the original version shared by MPAC in two notable ways. First, it opens with a clip of the quote investigated here before returning to the beginning of Bourdain’s speech, which is then aired in full. Second, AJ+ intercut the original video footage, which shows Bourdain reading his notes, with footage taken from the “Parts Unknown” episode for which he won the award. None of the edits AJ+ made to the original video altered the content of Bourdain’s words in any way.

    AJ+ has made X posts sharing its edit of Bourdain’s speech multiple times since June 2018. The most recent occasion was on June 25, 2024, which would have been Bourdain’s 68th birthday. Made four days before @zei_squirrel’s viral post, that AJ+ post (archived) had received around 3,300 reposts and 6,200 likes at the time of this writing.

    Snopes has previously investigated another quote about Palestine that popular social media posts have attributed to Bourdain.

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Wazer

    Source link

  • Hancock: United at Last

    Hancock: United at Last

    [ad_1]

    From humble beginnings to near orphan at 7, to one of the wealthiest people in America, to one of the first the British targeted as being someone no pardon would be given, to President of Congress and beyond, John Hancock led a rather interesting life as we’ve been covering in this 5 part Hancock series.

    With a peace treaty finally announced in 1783 and his life no longer forfeit if the British prevailed, when he wasn’t battling health issues including severe issues with gout, John Hancock was otherwise governing the state of Massachusetts. It was in this role in 1785 when he was once again voted in as President of Congress, technically making him the first President of the United States to be elected to two non-consecutive terms given his former role as President of Congress during the early going of the war.

    Unfortunately his health had deteriorated too much at this point, and he was unable to make the trip to Philadelphia to take office there directly. To add insult to injury, shortly after being elected, his 10 year old son died in an ice skating accident in January of 1786. For reference, his only other child, a daughter Lydia, had also previously died as a baby about ten years before this. Health poor, he finally resigned as President on June 6, 1786. But his work was not quite done for the new United States, having one more critical role to play.

    As we’ve covered in great depth in our video The Key to Humans Humaning, after John Adams, Ben Franklin and co. successfully negotiated the end of the American Revolution with the Treaty of Paris, signed by both sides on September 3, 1783, the United States had a major problem. Despite the name, its states weren’t exactly actually united, generally out to serve their own interests first and, if convenient, those of their loose union. During the war this was less of a problem as they had pressing need to work together. Now, they didn’t.

    Not only that, but in their quest to make a central government that was as purposefully weak as possible so as never to come to dominate in the way their former government did over them, they had gone too far, creating a government in the Articles of Confederation, or the so-called “league of friendship,” that had, as George Washington so famously put “no money” and no real way to get any outside of printing some that was worthless. This was a rather glaring issue for countless reasons, right down to the then complete inability for the government to pay its debts or its soldiers or for anything at all really.

    The central government also had very little power it could exert over its states, or make anything happen in many cases unless all the states agreed on it, which was an extreme rarity. This was a major immediate problem when considering, for example, the aforementioned Treaty of Paris between Britain and the U.S. that ended the war and gave incredibly favorable terms to the new country. The issue was, many of the states saw little need to adhere to the treaty, and, indeed were not, and there was very little the federal government could do about it. This could have potentially blown up in the young nations’ face had Britain decided to also go back on the deal, potentially plunging the nation right back into war it couldn’t afford against a still very superior adversary, and this time perhaps not seeing the French have the United States’ back after the U.S. kind of threw them under the bus in negotiations with the British.

    In short, Congress had no real power to govern anything, the states knew it, and at a certain point it even mostly ceased trying. All of this had been done very intentionally given the political minds among the colonists knew well most such attempts at similar governments in the past had ultimately devolved into some form of tyranny, whether tyranny of the majority or by those placed in power, regardless of what any laws put in place said. Not just in governments far afield or in the past, but this was something they themselves had seen with some of the then state legislatures abusing their positions in the colonies.

    George Washington would write of all this, “We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation.“ And, he further states, the government they had made was “a shadow without the substance”.

    Thus, it became clear to all that the Articles needed, at the very least, amended heavily if the nation in some form was to survive at all. After some deliberation about this, it was decided to convene to fix the problem with delegates from each state selected to represent the people in these changes, with 70 delegates from the 13 states selected, of which 55 ultimately attended the Convention. Once there, they ultimately decided instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation, they would instead just come up with a brand new Constitution.

    If you’d like the full details on the surprisingly interesting saga of the development of the U.S. Constitution and just how revolutionary it was at the time, which is often lost on us in modern times, do go check out our video The Key to Humans Humaning after you’re done watching this video. But suffice it to say for now, after a whole lot of hot and sweaty political wrangling shut up (quit literally with windows closed and all to stop eavesdropping) in the summer of 1787, enough delegates, 39, were willing to sign the completed document they came up with to approve it, despite that pretty much everyone had issues with elements of it.

    And so it was that the United States had a shiny new proposed Constitution.

    After everyone signed, Ben Franklin would muse while looking at a painting of the sun on the chair George Washington, who had presided over the assembly, sat in,

    “Often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, [I] looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.”

    As to what happened after they all signed, according to George Washington, the remaining delegates all went out to City Tavern and had a party.

    It was done.

    Well, almost. It still needed ratified by the states to become official.

    When it was put before Massachusetts, however, the issue of whether to ratify it was highly contentious, despite its extreme similarity to the Massachusetts Constitution from which it was partially based. Once again going back to the Articles of Confederation, many within the states at the time heavily favored independence and a loose coalition and weak central power uniting them. The new constitution was proposing the opposite of that. Others were caught up in various details of it, everything from the term length for those elected, to it not including a Bill of Rights initially, to it not abolishing slavery as the Massachusetts constitution had via John Adams’ inclusion of a Declaration of Rights which criticall had at the start- “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

    All of these arguments were basically the same that had been made in the United States’ Constitutions’ drafting. As Ben Franklin would sum up when the document was originally approved, “There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve… I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me… to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does…Thus I consent… to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.”

    Going back to Massachusetts, when the ratifying convention first met in January of 1788, Hancock was naturally elected President of the convention, despite his ailing health which initially prevented him from attending the debates. As for his opinion on it all, he kept his cards close to his chest, including when he was first presented a copy of the proposed new constitution, he stated it was not for him, to quote, “to decide upon this momentous affair.”

    However, in the early going rumors swirled that Hancock opposed the measure, allegedly in no small part as it diminished his power as governor in some ways via putting a more powerful federal government over him. Other prominent individuals such as his Lieutenant Governor Samuel Adams also seemed to be leaning that way too in the early going, though he would change his mind in the end. But before that, Samuel Adams would write to Richard Henry Lee on December 5, 1787, “I confess, as I enter the Building I stumble at the Threshold. I meet with a National Government instead of a Federal Union of Sovereign States. I am unable to conceive why the Wisdom of the Convention led them to give the Preference to the former before the latter. If several States in the Union are to become one entire Nation, under one Legislature, the Powers of which shall extend to every Subject of Legislation, and its Laws be supreme & control the whole, the Idea of Sovereignty in these States must be lost.”

    With it seemingly like the ratification would not go through, Hancock finally did attend, having his servants carry him to the hall reportedly wrapped in flannels. There, on February 6, he gave a speech before the vote, throwing his support wholeheartedly behind ratification, stating,

    “I am happy that my health has been so far restored, that I am rendered able to meet my fellow-citizens as represented in this Convention. I should have considered it as one of the most distressing misfortunes of my life to be deprived of giving my aid and support to a system which… cannot fail to give the people of the United States a greater degree of political freedom, and eventually as much national dignity, as falls to the lot of any nation on earth…

    That a general system of government is indispensably necessary to save our country from ruin, is agreed upon all sides. That the one now to be decided upon has its defects, all agree; but when we consider the variety of interests, and the different habits of the men it is intended for, it would be very singular to have an entire union of sentiment respecting it… but, as the matter now stands, the powers reserved by the people render them secure, and, until they themselves become corrupt, they will always have upright and able rulers. I give my assent to the Constitution…

    The question now before you is such as no nation on earth, without the limits of America, has ever had the privilege of deciding upon. As the Supreme Ruler of the universe has seen fit to bestow upon us this glorious opportunity, let us decide upon it; appealing to him for the rectitude of our intentions, and in humble confidence that he will yet continue to bless and save our country.”

    When the votes were ultimately cast shortly after this speech, of the 355 voters, only 19 more were in favor of ratification vs against, with how close this ended up being seeing many credit Hancock choosing to side with those in favor swaying the outcome.

    In the aftermath, poor health or not, Hancock’s popularity was still about as high as it could be among the masses and he easily continued to win election after election as Governor of Massachusetts.

    Had it not been for his health, given his relatively young age and extreme popularity, in a likelihood John Hancock would have had a decent shot at pulling off the trifecta of not just President of the Continental Congress and then President under the Articles of Confederation, but also President under the new United States Constitution at some point, though, of course, Washington winning the first election was all but inevitable, and no one was surprised by that outcome. Speaking of that first election, while as was the custom of the time, Hancock did not campaign or even express overt interest in the office of the Presidency, he did receive 4 electoral college votes anyway, 2 from Pennsylvania, and 1 each from Virginia and South Carolina. And likely would have received significantly more if not for his boyhood friend in John Adams taking all the Massachusetts electoral votes, with Adams ultimately becoming vice president to George Washington partially because of it in 1789, and later the second President of the United States in 1797.

    But whether Hancock might have secured the role for himself at some point or not, it was not to be as his health continued its rapid decline despite his relatively young age.

    Ultimately John Hancock would pass away on October 8, 1793 at the age of only 56. Over 20,000 people attended his funeral, about 1 in 200 people in the United States at the time, and the date was ordered by now Massachusetts Governor Samuel Adams to be a state holiday. Hancock’s final resting place is next to his Uncle Thomas at the Old Granary Burial Grounds in Boston.

    Now, if you’ve followed along in this 5 part series, you might at this point be thinking it seems a rather odd thing that the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and their many prominent cohorts would be so lauded in the aftermath, yet John Hancock was largely forgotten in popular history outside of his famous signature. As one of his biographers, Harlow Unger, would write, “John Hancock’s transformation from Tory patrician to fiery rebel is one of the least-known stories of the Revolution…. [yet] he was, perhaps, the consummate American hero.”

    Even John Adams in 1809 had already observed the trend and lamented that both Samuel Adams and John Hancock, two of the biggest players in the early revolution, had been so shunted to the side and, to quote Adams, “almost buried in oblivion.”

    So what happened?

    Well, as we can attest in doing our five video deep dive on the man, outside of countless letters pertaining to business transactions and later similar administrative letters during the Revolution, Hancock did not actually leave much in the way of personal writings for historians to gauge his thoughts, motivations, and perspectives as so many others of the founding fathers did, most prominently arguably John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams who kept daily journals for huge portions of their lives covering everything that was going on around them and their daily lives. The power of this is it allows historians to view events and decisions from the individual’s perspective to contrast from those of their political enemies and others speaking about them.

    Now, if you enjoy reading about business transactions and administration, you’ll love diving into the John Hancock archives, but otherwise, he left relatively little of the rest, leaving most of what’s said about him we remember today being written by his opposition in politics. And of this, while most described him as an extremely able administrator and moderator of disputes, his propensity for insanely foppish dress and his perceived vanity from all this did not exactly endear him to many of the other leaders on a personal level, given this type of excess and his extreme wealth were generally seen as contrary to the republican ideals they were all fighting for.

    Further, at least by their accounts, and to be fair you can see where it comes through in some of his own personal writings that have survived, he also seemed to enjoy to an extreme degree his popularity with the masses- in a nutshell he seems to have liked being famous, which was also seen as anti-republican to revel in such things openly. This is partially why in the early going in the United States it was tradition to not really promote yourself when running for offices like that of President, but simply to let it be known you’d accept the position if elected, and then allow your constituents to take it from there. And even if you were elected, it was expected you’d say something like you didn’t feel qualified for the job and didn’t really want it, even though in most cases the opposite was very clearly true. You just couldn’t say that. Thus, Hancock’s more open ambition, fancy dress, perceived vanity, and excessive wealth worked against his reputation with, ironically, the other elite.

    As James Madison would state, “Hancock is weak, ambitious, a courtier of popularity, given to low intrigue.”

    This about a man who was among the first to call the colonists to fight and was steadfast in this in the early going when it was most likely to see him hung, and he had everything to lose in his immense fortune as well even if he wasn’t arrested and executed for treason. Sure doesn’t seem weak at all.

    Sam Adams would also chime in writing of the celebration Hancock held after he became governor of Massachusetts, “John Hancock … appears in public with all the pagentry of an Oriental prince. He rides in an elegant chariot. … He is attended by four servants dressed in superb livery, mounted on fine horses richly caparisoned, and escorted by fifty horsemen with drawn sabres—the one half of whom precede, and the other follow, his carriage.”

    In stark contrast, and amazingly ironic if you really think about it, the masses on the whole seemed to adore John Hancock thanks to his extreme philanthropy and generous nature, amiable personality, not just towards the elite, but to the masses at any station in life, his skill as an administrator during the revolution which was critical to its early success, and his bold patriotism despite what this cost him in a number of ways when so many others in similar positions sided with the British. In short, the masses seem to have had an entirely different opinion of the man, and there’s a reason in the early going of the war there were rallying cries of “King Hancock”.

    But those masses died off, and historians, with very little to work with directly from the man, mostly only accounts from his political opponents, and with much of his more significant role in the revolution being in helping to start it and, in the early going, administer it… well, let’s just say writing letters to convince some governmental body or individual to send more troops or resources or arranging the funding and outfitting the ship that sent the first diplomat to France to get that crucial aid there is not exactly as sexy as winning a major battle or drafting the declaration of independence or the Constitution. Nevermind the fact that if Hancock had not played such a prominent role in igniting the revolution in the first place, and then figuring out how to keep it going via this rather mundane administrative and mediating work, those major battle victories and everything after would not have happened.

    As historian Charles Akers would sum up, “The chief victim of Massachusetts historiography has been John Hancock, the most gifted and popular politician in the Bay State’s long history. He suffered the misfortune of being known to later generations almost entirely through the judgments of his detractors, Tory and Whig.”

    But perhaps John Adams, one of the most distinguished of all of his era and who knew John Hancock from boyhood, would sum him up best, writing about Hancock a couple decades after Hancock’s death, lamenting the way history remembered him. Stating in 1812,

    “When will the Character of Hancock be understood? Never. I could melt into Tears when I hear his Name. The property he possessed when his Country called him, would purchase Washington and Franklin both. If Benevolence, Charity, Generosity were ever personified in North America, they were in John Hancock. What Shall I Say of his Education? his literary Acquisitions, his Travels, his military civil and political Services, his Sufferings, and Sacrifices?… I can say with truth that I profoundly admired him and more profoundly loved him.”

    Five years later, in 1817 he would expound upon all this considerably, writing, “I knew Mr. Hancock from his cradle to his grave. He was radically generous and benevolent… What shall I say of his fortune, his ships? … at that time… not less than a thousand families were, every day in the year, dependent on Mr. Hancock for their daily bread. Consider his real estate in Boston, in the country, in Connecticut, and the rest of New England. Had Mr. Hancock fallen asleep to this day, he would now awake one of the richest men. Had he persevered in business as a private merchant, he might have erected a house of Medicis… [But] no man’s property was ever more entirely devoted to the public. The town had… chosen Mr. Hancock into the legislature of the province…. his mind was soon engrossed by public cares, alarms, and terrors; his business was left to subalterns; his private affairs neglected, and continued to be so to the end of his life….”

    Adams concludes,

    “Though I never injured or justly offended him, and though I spent much of my time and suffered unknown anxiety in defending his property, reputation, and liberty from persecution, I cannot but reflect upon myself for not paying him more respect than I did in his lifetime… But if statues, obelisks, pyramids, or divine honors were ever merited by men, of cities or nations… John Hancock deserved these from the… United States….

    James Otis, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock were the three most essential characters [in the revolution]; and Great Britain knew it, though America does not. Great and important and excellent characters, aroused and excited by these, arose in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, South Carolina, and in all the other States, but these three were the first movers, the most constant, steady, persevering springs, agents, and most disinterested sufferers and firmest pillars of the whole Revolution.”

    [ad_2]

    Daven Hiskey

    Source link

  • Real Photo of Woman Watching 1 of the Twin Towers Burn on 9/11?

    Real Photo of Woman Watching 1 of the Twin Towers Burn on 9/11?

    [ad_1]

    Claim:

    A photo shared online in early July 2024 authentically showed a young woman seated on a building ledge and watching one of the Twin Towers burn during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S.

    Rating:

    A striking image of a young woman in New York City watching on as one of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers burned during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 was posted on X in July 2024.

    “This girl sat there taking pics and just let 9/11 happen,” the caption read.

    Another post written a day before had amassed more than 27.9 million views at the time of this writing.

    Some people replying to the second post were unsure whether the image was real. One wrote: “Have never seen this photo before. I’ll assume it’s fake for engagement… like this.”

    Another said: “Can’t be real. She’d have been cold that morning dressed like this. It was a crisp morning.”

    One X user even suggested the picture had been digitally manipulated: “I’m guessing this is ai. First this picture is too clear to be from 2001 and second it looks like she has another finger growing off of her ring finger. Something just doesn’t seem right.”

    Similar posts appeared elsewhere on social media in early July, including Threads and Instagram.

    However, the photo had been circulating online for more than a decade. Snopes found two examples from 2019, on Imgur and Reddit, two more Reddit posts from 2017 and 2016, and a post on Flickr from 2013.

    Snopes traced the image back to Los Angeles-based photographer Ari Abramczyk, who confirmed via email she took picture. She also showed us other photographs she captured from that moment but asked us not to publish them. Abramczyk provided Snopes with the original files, where the metadata showed they were taken on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

    Abramczyk said she initially put the photo in question on Flickr in 2005; however, she was uncomfortable with how widely it circulated online, so she took it down.

    On Sept. 12, 2021, Abramczyk wrote a post on Instagram explaining the story behind the image:

    I think it’s time I set the story straight on this image. This is my image, I took it when I was 18, living in Tribeca in a model apartment on the West Side Highway in New York. I’ve always been pretty private about these images. This image was posted one time, on Flickr, with a small caption, when I was in school for photojournalism, and never again since. I have never released the other images from that day, and I don’t know if I ever will. I have never sold this image or given permission for anyone to post it. I have never made a single penny off of it, and would never want to. In the 15 or so years since I made that image public, it has taken on a life of its own, and every year, several friends tag me in posts to alert me where the image has gone. I’ve never wanted to make a post about it, but this year, on the 20th anniversary of the attack, the comments got even more brutal. Every year, I have a panic attack. Every year I am so disturbed, so effected by what people say about it. I thought maybe it was time to get the real story out there. I don’t think I owe anyone an explanation. I lived through a traumatic event and I had PTSD for many years. Maybe I still do. But I thought maybe, if the real story is out there, it might ease my mind on the coming years.

    She later told Snopes she was 17 when she took the picture, not 18.

    Abramczyk provided a more thorough explanation behind the photo in a follow-up post the same day. She said she was working as a model at the time and lived with three other models in her Tribeca apartment. On the morning of Sept. 11, she was woken up by an “incredibly intense” sound that shook the building.

    I looked out of the window to the street below and saw nothing. Then I looked over and saw it. One of the twin towers was on fire. I started to hear people screaming. People were running down the highway away from the building.

    Abramczyk explained that she grabbed her camera and went up to the roof to take photos to process what was happening.

    “It was a shield between me and the world. I didn’t know what else to do,” she wrote.

    “One of my new roommates sat down on the ledge, and I saw this wild juxtaposition between her beauty and the horror in front of us, and I took the picture.”

    She then said she witnessed another plane hitting the second tower before packing a bag and fleeing her apartment while screaming and crying.

    The photographer took more pictures upon reaching the street and even more in the following weeks. She said the event made her realize she wanted to be a photographer but later switched to commercial photography as she “didn’t have the stomach” for photojournalism.

    However, Abramczyk explained how she regretted posting the photo online:

    I regret posting the image with model’s name who is in it. I captioned it like I had been told to do in school. I imagine that she sees this image every year, and I imagine it’s probably painful for her, too. I have never spoken to her again, nor has she reached out to me. But if you ever read this, please know that I am sorry. If I could take that back, I would. I have relived this moment so many times. I think maybe it will ease my mind that I know that the real story is out there, if people want to know it.

    Although Abramczyk asked Snopes not to publish the other images, she did give us permission to use the photograph in question in this article.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Hardinges

    Source link

  • Hancock: We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident

    Hancock: We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident

    [ad_1]

    In 1775, the members of the Second Continental Congress and their President John Hancock were in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, Act after Act of the British Parliament were making it clear Parliament not only considered themselves the de facto rulers and governing body of the colonies, but that any push back against Parliament would result in harsh penalties. On the other hand, the general sentiment among the populace and leaders of the colonies was to continue to push for peace and remain in the British Empire. In a nutshell, being part of the British Empire was not generally considered the problem, simply that Parliament continued to act like it ruled in America instead of the local colonial governments. Thus, the colonists wanted Parliament to leave them be, while remaining loyal subjects to the King.

    In fact, almost exactly a year before Congress would declare independence, they tried very hard to go the other way in their Olive Branch Petition to King George III, approved on July 5, 1775. In it Congress stated,

    “We, your Majesty’s faithful subjects of the colonies…entreat your Majesty’s gracious attention to this our humble petition…. we not only most ardently desire the former harmony between her and these colonies may be restored, but that a concord may be established between them upon so firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future dissentions, to succeeding generations in both countries… That your Majesty may enjoy a long and prosperous reign, and that your descendants may govern your dominions with honor to them selves and happiness to their subjects, is our sincere and fervent prayer.”

    Thus, professing their loyalty to the king and desire to remain in the British Empire, they simply were asking that he intercede on their behalf with Parliament and their recent actions against the American colonies.

    Had King George responded differently here, much of history would have irrevocably changed. But instead, he allegedly didn’t even bother to read their petition before issuing his Proclamation of Rebellion on August 23, 1775, writing,

    “Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them… have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner… we have thought fit… to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavors to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion… in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abettors of such traitorous designs.”

    Doubling down on disabusing the colonists of the notion that he would be loyal to them, his subjects, and not Parliament, King George also went ahead and began hiring mercenaries to level against the colonists.

    Further antagonizing the traitors to the British crown, Parliament soon after passed the Prohibitory Act of 1775 which not only removed the colonies from the protection of the King, put also put an end to any trade with the colonies in an attempt to wreck their economy, as well as declared that any ship found trading with the colonists, to quote, “shall be forfeited to his Majesty, as if the same were the ships and effects of open enemies.”

    As for the Continental Congress’s thoughts on all this, they note “That as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late Act of Parliament by which he declares us out of his protection.”

    John Adams would also chime in, “It throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties… It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.”

    As with the Boston Tea Party in our previous video in this series, Hancock: Igniting the Revolution, where the colonists were forced between submitting and allowing the tea to touch American soil or destroy it, the colonists were now forced via British government action to choose between two paths. On the one hand, they could submit, and accept Parliamentary rule over themselves without representation in that body, as well as any penance Parliament required for their act of rebellion. Or they could officially cut ties with their motherland and fight one of the most powerful empires in history for independence. There no longer seemed any option of a middle ground.

    As Thomas Jefferson would sum up the state of things at this point to one of his friends now returned to England, loyalist John Randolph, in a letter written on November 29, 1775,

    “In an earlier part of this contest, our petitions told [the King], that from our King there was but one appeal. The admonition was despised, and that appeal forced on us. To undo his Empire, he has but one more truth to learn; that, after Colonies have drawn the sword, there is but one step more they can take. That step is now pressed upon us, by the measures adopted,… Believe me, dear Sir, there is not in the British Empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this I think I speak the sentiments of America. We want neither inducement nor power, to declare and assert a separation. It is will alone which is wanting, and that is growing apace, under the fostering hand of our King. One bloody campaign will probably decide, everlastingly, our future course… If our winds and waters should not combine to rescue their shores from slavery, and General Howe’ s re-enforcement should arrive in safety, we have hopes he will be inspirited to come out of Boston and take another drubbing; and we must drub him soundly, before the sceptred tyrant will know we are not mere brutes, to crouch under his hand, and kiss the rod with which he deigns to scourge us.”

    With no other way forward but subservience, over the following months, one by one the colonies began to fall in line with the notion of breaking away from the British Empire, with North Carolina on April 12, 1776 being the first to officially empower their delegates to vote for independence, followed by Rhode Island becoming the first to openly declare independence on May 4.

    Nevertheless, as summer approached, debate over the matter was reportedly extremely heated with, on May 15th, Maryland’s delegation even walking out of the proceedings on passing a preamble as a precursor to an official declaration of independence. Nevertheless, 9 of the 13 colonies voted for the preamble and it was passed. That very day, the Virginia legislature also instructed their delegation “to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States…”

    And so it was that on June 7, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia officially proposed just such a resolution, ultimately seconded by John Adams, “Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

    The push back was still there, however. Once again, at this point most agreed that independence was inevitable given British actions, but there was still heated debate over the timing, with some arguing they should wait until they had secured foreign aid without which, it seemed probable the revolution would fail. Another issue at this point was that some of the colonies had still not yet authorized their delegates to vote on the matter of independence. Thus, a vote was withheld on it, but in the interim it was decided to have a document drawn up which would both declare the colonies independent and list the reasons why they felt justified in taking this extreme action, with the so-called Committee of 5 put together to draft the document, comprising of John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.

    In a surprising move, the committee selected the young 33 year old Jefferson to write the document over the much more distinguished writer and well known individual world wide in Ben Franklin, or one of the pinnacles of legal and political minds in the world at the time in John Adams. It was, however, Adams who would persuade both the committee to choose Jefferson, and to convince Jefferson himself to take the lead. Adams would write to Jefferson on his reasoning, “Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.”

    Unfortunately the Committee did not keep minutes on their internal discussions, so there isn’t a whole lot to say as to its drafting, But as to the text of the Declaration, Jefferson would state it was “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” Ultimately borrowing from everything from John Locke to the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which had ended the reign of King James II.

    Now nearing the end of June, the legislatures of all but two of the colonies, Maryland, and New York, had finally authorized their delegates to vote on the matter of independence, and the Provincial Congress of New Jersey even had their Royal Governor William Franklin arrested on June 15. However, one of Maryland’s delegates, Samuel Chase, was ultimately able to convince the Assembly of the Counties of Maryland to change their mind on June 28 and allow the Maryland delegates to vote on the matter. This was the same day the Committee of 5 first presented their final draft of ‘A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled” to Congress. New York delegates, however, had to abstain from voting on it owing to British forces interfering with the Provincial Congress there convening to give them permission.

    Nevertheless, over the next few days Congress continually made tweaks to the Committee of 5’s document, cutting out about a quarter of the original text, as well as tweaking the wording here and there. As to what was removed, most notable was a section where Jefferson, ironically not only a slave holder himself but who would eventually have an entire family and long term relationship with one of his slaves, not only condemned the evil of slavery, but accused King George of aiding that institution in the colonies.

    Jefferson would later write of why this text was removed, “The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under these censures, for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

    With the document finalized on July 1 and a vote pending, John Dickinson, who opposed any violent means to resolve their issues with Britain, tried one more last ditch effort to forgo any such declaration until they were more secure in their position with foreign aid and had completed the Articles of Confederation, but he was opposed as ever by John Adams who gave an impassioned speech the other way in response.

    As a brief aside, Dickinson would, in the aftermath, both refuse to vote on the matter, as well as later refuse to sign the declaration, and because of this was not able to remain a member of the Continental Congress, though did voluntarily resign rather than be forcibly removed. Dickinson would state of all this, “My conduct this day, I expect will give the finishing blow to my once too great and, my integrity considered, now too diminished popularity.”

    Despite his opposition, which again included extreme opposition to violent means to achieve independence, rather than abstain from fighting, upon leaving Congress Dickinson immediately joined the Pennsylvania militia, one of the only members of the Continental Congress to directly take up arms during the war. Further, as much as Adams and he had been adversaries in Congress over the matter of independence, because of Dickinson standing by his principles so vehemently even given all it cost him to do so, Adams would remark of him, “Mr. Dickinson’s alacrity and spirit certainly become his character and sets a fine example.”

    In the end, on July 2nd 12 of the 13 colonies voted in favor of independence, with only the New York delegates abstaining until they could get permission to vote on the matter, which happened about a week later.

    Document finally approved, as President of Congress, John Hancock seems to have signed it, with Secretary of Congres Charles Thomson also signing it as witness. Hancock then ordered to have printer John Dunlap make around 200 copies to be distributed to the masses and the world, today known as the Dunlap broadsides.

    And yes on this note, seemingly just John Hancock signed it at this point, though even that isn’t technically known for sure as the original copy sent to Dunlap was lost, though given Hancock and then Thomson’s name as witness were printed on these, it’s generally assumed Hancock did sign it.

    As for the version of the Declaration of Independence most people know today with Hancock’s famed giant signature, this engrossed version that is on display at the United States National Archives wasn’t created until sometime after July 19th, and ultimately wasn’t signed by everyone until August 2nd.

    As for this signing, Benjamin Rush stated that it was a fairly somber affair with only the portly Benjamin Harrison trying to break the mood by cracking a joke to Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, stating,

    “I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes and be with the Angels, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead.”

    Rush states Gerry’s only reply was, to quote, “a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the Solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.”

    This all brings us to John Hancock’s signature on the engrossed copy of the Declaration and why it was so much bigger than everyone else’s, leading to his name being synonymous with one’s signature. As for the common myth, legend has it that Hancock signed the document front and center and so big so that King George would see his name without needing to put on his glasses, but there is no evidence of any of this, and as noted the previous printed versions that King George would actually see simply had Hancock’s name printed on.

    Further, if you’ve watched the other videos in this series: Hancock: Rise of the Merchant Prince, Hancock: Igniting the Revolution, and Hancock: Revere’s Ride, you’ll know King George was already extremely well aware of John Hancock’s significant role in the rebellion, so a giant signature was not needed to make it clear who was President of the Continental Congress. In fact, it was John Hancock’s signature that was first and foremost on the previous Olive Branch Petition to the King that had been so soundly rejected.

    So why was Hancock’s signature bigger than everyone else’s and front and center? While nobody can say for sure, most likely it was simply because of the very aforementioned fact- he was president of Congress and first to sign. So chose to sign right in the center. And without yet any other signatures there, he had no real gauge of how big or small to make it. And, contrary to what you might think from what people say, if you’ve never seen it, if you take out everyone else’s signature, nothing about his signature looks out of place in size or position on the document. It’s really not that big except relative to the other signatures.

    As to why everyone else chose to make theirs smaller, this may have been in slight deference to Hancock as their President, or may have simply been that the first to sign after him chose to make it smaller for whatever reason so everyone else followed suit. As for those signature sizes, after Hancock, William Ellery was the next biggest at about 60% the space taken up by Hancock’s signature, with Carter Braxton the smallest at about 1/10th the space, and everyone else randomly in between.

    Whatever the case, again, being the first to sign, Hancock did not have any gauge to know how big anyone else would sign. So seemingly just did what seemed appropriate without such a reference.

    Although, I think the best explanation we’ve ever heard was written by one Matt Stofsky. His entire explanation is too long to fully illustrate here, but in part, he gives a totally and in all ways we are sure accurate account of John Hancock’s reasoning, with Hancock definitely writing the following as relayed by Stofsky,

    “Now that our noble document is complete, it is time to address the elephant in the room: my name is much bigger than everyone else’s. I’ll be the first to admit that it is absolutely massive. Yet I must also speak this self-evident truth: it is not entirely my fault.

    The fact is I thought we were all doing big signatures. That’s what I was told. Do none of you remember Thomas Jefferson—hopped up on parchment fumes and cheap barleywine—running around telling everyone our ‘sigs’ had to be ‘freakin’ huge’? Then I go first, and everybody bursts out laughing like I did something foolish.

    I hereby call on my brethren of the Second Continental Congress—those who I know to be defenders of liberty, progress, and the values of the Enlightenment, to which we are all fan-boyishly devoted for some reason—to publicly stand up and say everybody told John Hancock we were doing big sigs.”

    Whatever the case there, in the aftermath of the Dunlap broadsides being printed and distributed, there was no going back. It was a successful revolution or every member of that committee would be executed for treason.

    John Hancock would write of this in a letter to George Washington on July 6, 1776, stating, “Altho it is not possible to foresee the Consequences of Human Actions, yet it is nevertheless a Duty we owe ourselves and Posterity, in all our public Counsels, to decide in the best Manner we are able, and to leave the Event to that Being who controuls both Causes and Events to bring about his own Determinations.”

    Of course, being commander of the revolutionary forces, Washington was no doubt praying hard right then to that Being who Controls Both Causes and Events, because mere days after the Declaration of Independence was announced to the world on July 4, 1776, the aforementioned British troops under command of the Howe brothers sailed into Staten Island. Both Admiral Richard Howe and General William Howe had previously strongly sympathized with the colonists’, with William Howe even before the war at various points arguing for fairer treatment of the American colonies in Parliament. The pair also delayed their departure to the colonies a considerable amount of time to try to acquire powers to negotiate a peace, rather than simply subjugating the colonists with force.

    However, while they may have sympathized with their former compatriots, their goal upon arriving in the New World was to put an end to the rebellion by any means necessary. Towards this end, they brought with them an army of around 32,000 soldiers and seamen, along with a whopping 400 ships, including nearly 100 warships.

    On the other side, the relatively newly minted General George Washington had been preparing defenses of the region, correctly guessing that it was in New York that the British would strike with these invading forces.

    In order to try to get Washington more support, as Howe was gathering his forces, Hanock would write the state assemblies stating, “I must repeat again to you that…. the Fate of America will be determined the ensuing campaign. I cannot help therefore once more pressing you to be expeditious in equipping & sending forward your Troops…. May the Great Disposer of all human Events, animate & guide your Councils, & enable you so to determine, that you may not only establish your own temporal Peace and Happiness, but those of your Posterity. Forgive this passionate Language. I am unable to restrain it–it is the Language of the Heart.”

    In a similar letter he would write calling for aid, “Our affairs are hastening fast to a crisis, and the approaching campaign will, in all probability determine forever the fate of America…. The militia of the United Colonies…. are called upon to say whether they will live slaves or die free men….On your exertions…..the salvation of America now…. Depends.”

    As for Howe, he initially attempted a peaceful resolution on July 20th. However, upon learning from Colonel James Patterson at a meeting discussing terms that Howe had only been granted the power to offer pardons in negotiations for peace, Washington famously replied, “Those who have committed no fault want no pardon.”

    Diplomacy having failed. The Howe brothers decided to attack, and a few weeks later, the then largest known battle ever fought in North America, involving close to 40,000 troops, including naval forces, was game on.

    What followed was a sweeping British victory which was almost catastrophic for the traitors to the British Crown, potentially ending the rebellion right there. You see, during the fighting, Howe managed to corner nearly half of Washington’s army. But for reasons still not totally clear today, Howe decided to cease pressing the attack at that point and instead ordered his soldiers to dig into their position. Speculations as to why he stopped are anything from that he thought Washington was surrounded and was giving him a chance to surrender without further loss of life, to that he simply thought pressing the attack, while likely to succeed, would have cost too many lives he could not easily replace. And as he felt his enemy couldn’t escape, there was little lost in taking the time to fortify his position.

    Whatever Howe was thinking here, Washington did not have surrender on his mind. Instead, in part aided by seemingly history changing fog that no doubt had Washington thanking the “Being who controls both causes and events”, Washington was able to slip the some 9,000 soldiers he had in that position away into Manhattan, all without the British realizing their enemy was escaping. Thus, what could have been a blow to the Continental Army that may well have ended any real chance at Independence while the ink on the Declaration of Independence was barely dry, instead saw the demoralized Continental Army having suffered a major defeat, with over 1,000 troops captured and a significant position lost, but, they, at least, mostly survived to fight another day.

    Things in the aftermath, however, would not improve much, with the revolutionary forces being defeated again and again such as at Kips Bay, Harlem Heights, White Plains, and Fort Washington. With retreat after retreat, and the budding nation desperately in need of funds to support war efforts, by 1777, things were bleak. Though despite all this, John Adams would steadfastly write, “Affairs are… delicate and critical. The panic may seize whom it will. It will not seize me.”

    John Hancock would write to his wife Dolly on March 10th about the state of affairs at this point, illustrating the more personal side of the struggle for all those involved, generally kept from their families and homes and in a perpetual heightened state of extreme stress,

    “My Dear Dear Dolly, My Detention at the Ferry & the badness of the Roads prevented my arriving here until Friday Evening. I put my things into Mr. Williams’ house, and went in pursuit of Lodgings. Neither Mrs. Yard nor Lucy could accommodate me. I then went to Smith’s and borrowed two Blankets & returned to my own house… I… lead a doleful lonesome life. Tho on Saturday I dined at Dr. Shippins… he is as lonesome as I… I long to have you here & I know you will be as expeditious as you can. When I part from you again it must be a very extraordinary occasion… However unsettled things may be I could not help sending for you as I cannot live in this way. We have an abundance of lies. The current report is that General Howe is bent on coming here…. We must, however, take our chances… I hope you will be able to pack up all your things quickly & have them on the way & that you will soon follow… Young Mr. Hillagas got here on Saturday, he is well, he delivered me your letter… I was exceedingly glad to hear from you and hope soon to receive another Letter. I know you will set off as soon as You can. endeavor to make good stages… I must leave those matters to you as the Road must in great measure determine your Stages. I do not imagine there is any danger of small-pox on the Road. Wilmington is the most dangerous, but go on to Chester. I want to get somebody clever to accompany you. I hope to send one to you, but if I should not be able, you must make out as well as you can.”

    Speaking of Howe advancing on them, Alexander Hamilton would write to John Hancock on September 18, 1777: “If Congress have not yet left Philadelphia, they ought to do it immediately without fail, for the enemy have the means of throwing a party this night into the city. I just now crossed the valleyford, in doing which a party of the enemy came down & fired upon us in the boat by which means I lost my horse. One man was killed and another wounded. The boats were abandon’d & will fall into their hands…”

    Going back to the personal side of things, on October 18, 1777, Hancock would write Dolly again, “My Dear Dolly, I am now at this date and not a line from you. Nor a single word have I heard from you since… your arrival at Worcester, which you my judge affects me not a little, but I must submit and will only say that I expected often to have been the object of your attention. This is my sixth letter to you… I long to see you. I shall close all my business in three days and indeed have already nearly finished, and when once I set out shall travel with great speed. Nothing will prevent my seeing you soon, with the leave of providence… I need not tell you there will be no occasion of your writing me after the receipt of this. My best wishes attend you for every good. I have much to say, which I leave to a cheerful evening with you in person.”

    Noteworthy on this apparent ghosting by his wife, the couples’ baby, Lydia, had died just a few months before and it may well be she was a little emotionally preoccupied. Or perhaps as noted in our previous video Hancock: Revere’s Ride where she ghosted him yet again for a time shortly before their marriage, she simply didn’t enjoy writing letters.

    Whatever the case, as referenced in his letter there, after two years chairing Congress as its President, in October of 1777, Hancock requested a leave of absence to return home to sort his affairs in Boston and rejoin his grieving wife. As for his leadership over Congress, this was generally seen as exemplary, using all his skills as a businessman and negotiator to mediate disputes, manage finances, drum up funds, as well as help coordinate the entire effort on all fronts.

    In his farewell address to Congress, he stated, “Gentlemen: Friday last completed two years and five months since you did me the honor of electing me to fill this chair. As I could never flatter myself your choice proceeded from any idea of my abilities, but rather from a partial opinion of my attachment to the liberties of America, I felt myself under the strongest obligation to discharge the duties of office…. I think I shall be forgiven, if I say, I have spared no pains, expense, or labor to gratify your wishes and to accomplish the views of Congress.”

    Unsurprisingly, what Hancock found in Boston upon his return was not only a hero’s welcome, but also his once vaunted House of Hancock business in shambles, and the town not in much better shape. On the trade side, all but two of his ships were gone, with Hancock quickly selling both of these to pay off some debts, officially putting the House of Hancock out of the import/export business. He was still, however, extremely rich in real estate and had massive sums of money owed to him, but as pretty much everyone’s finances were poor at this time, collecting debts wasn’t exactly going well, and Hancock wasn’t the type to force tenants and the like who couldn’t pay to do so until they could.

    That said, it’s generally thought he must have still had a good amount of money available to him even at this point, as, while he had sold the remainder of his ships, he didn’t bother trying to sell any of his real estate. And on top of that, ever the philanthropist as his uncle before him, among his first acts upon arriving in Boston was to provide food, clothing and the like to widows and orphans of the war, as well as funds and supplies to help people repair their damaged homes and rebuild their lives.

    Naturally from all this and his former exemplary work leading Congress, after a few months leave, in December of 1777, he was a shoe-in to be re-elected to the Continental Congress. Upon rejoining that body in June of 1778, within a month, along with 7 other state’s delegates, he signed the finally completed Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution of the United States- though noteworthy this wouldn’t be ratified until 1781.

    Perhaps the most critical thing of all for the war also occurred in 1778 with Congress establishing the Treaty of Alliance with France, without which the colonist would almost certainly have lost the war, as this treaty not only garnered the colonists significant direct military aid from one of the more powerful nations in the world, but also on the side French action caused Britain to have to divert some of its manpower elsewhere in the world. This was something that was only doubled down on with regards to issues for Britain when the British seized a Dutch ship allegedly carrying supplies to France, causing a row with the Dutch in yet another thing the British had to occupy themselves with instead of focussing on their rebelling colonies. This would all also culminate in the Dutch becoming the 2nd nation after France to officially recognize the United States’ independence in 1782.

    In any event, rewinding back to July of 1778, John Hancock finally got his chance to lead a mass of troops, though unfortunately the whole thing was rather anticlimactic on his end. While you’ll sometimes read that Hancock at the head of 6,000 Massachusetts troops suffered a major defeat owing to his bumbling attack on the British entrenched in Newport, Rhode Island, and only retaining his popularity after thanks to the extent of his previous work in the revolution, as well as philanthropic efforts, this isn’t really accurate at all.

    As to the real story, in a nutshell, Washington ordered General John Sullivan, a man John Adams once expressed his wish “that the first ball that had been fired… had gone through [Sullivan’s] head,” to attack the British garrison in Newport. Hancock was indeed there commanding several thousand soldiers, and by the way Paul Revere was there as well, but they weren’t really otherwise involved in much of anything in the disaster that follow, both in that Hancock seems to have left any actual planning and commanding to the professional soldiers under him, as well as the fact that his troops just were not really that involved because they left and went home to Boston.

    As to why, thanks to a major storm and some skirmishes before and directly after when scattered, the supporting French fleet, under French Admiral d’Estaing, was in need of repairs to many of their ships and no amount of arguing from Sullivan’s side, and Hancock reportedly also made his own attempt, could convince the Admiral to remain. And, thus, the French fleet departed on August 21 for Boston. It didn’t help that the assembled militia, according to Marquis de Lafayette, didn’t exactly inspire confidence they could do what they said they could even if they had the fleet’s help. Lafayette stated, “I have never seen a more laughable spectacle; all the tailors and apothecaries in the country must have been called out. They were mounted on bad nags, and looked like a flock of ducks in cross-belts.”

    This left Sullivan in a very precarious position, not just from the French withdrawal, but also because without French aid, any chance of succeeding in taking Newport at this point was gone. Thus, many of the militia troops, particularly those under temporary contract of just a few weeks, simply deserted. Likewise Hancock and his army also withdrew as there was no point in hanging around anymore, with he and his men back home in Boston by August 26th.

    In the aftermath, the very much needed relationship with France was strained, with the American public being less than kind, to put it mildly, in the press and the like with regards to the French and their actions on this one, generally blaming them and their alleged cowardice for the failure of the campaign. Once again showing his skills as a diplomat and mediator, Hancock tried to restore friendly relations, in this case putting together both a formal dinner and subsequent reception at Faneuil Hall for the French Admiral and Lafayette and their officers, with most of Boston’s leading citizens in attendance as well.

    Fast-forwarding about a year later, John Adams was recalled from France to Massachusetts in August of 1779 and returned to being a private citizen briefly, though only a week later was appointed to draft a new Constitution for the state, ultimately in the span of just a couple months writing what would become to this day the oldest still functioning codified constitution, which not coincidentally heavily influence the United States Constitution, the second oldest still functioning codified constitution. For more on all that, see our video The Key to Humans Humaning.

    But as to our story today, with the new Massachusetts Constitution ratified on June 15, 1780 and going into effect in October of that year, the people of Massachusetts were in need of a governor. And if you’ve been following along in our Hancock series and guessed John Hancock, one of the most popular men in all of the colonies, would be elected in a landslide as the state’s first Governor, you’d be correct, with Hancock assuming that role on October 25, 1780 after getting an astounding approximately 90% of the votes.

    Unfortunately for Hancock at this time, while he was continually re-elected up through 1785 when he’d switch to become the President of United States under the Articles of Confederation, like his father and uncle before him, his health was rapidly in decline despite only being in his 40s.

    As to what ailed him, as seemingly ran in his family, he suffered from occasional severe bouts of gout that would leave him bed-ridden. Nevertheless, he soldiered on and while still governor of Massachusetts, the peace with the British was announced in 1783.

    Hancock, who had sacrificed much of his fortune and was among the first the British targeted to hang for treason should the war have gone the other way, would express his relief, writing after he found out,

    “I have not the vanity to think that I have been of very extensive service in our late unhappy contest, but one thing I can truly boast: I set out upon honest principles and strictly adhered to them to the close of the contest… I have lost many thousand sterling but, thank God, my country is saved and, by the smile of Heaven, I am a free and independent man.”

    His work for the nation was not done, however. And despite victory, now without the British threat uniting them, the states of the confederation were on the verge of falling completely apart, with many even regularly violating the terms of the treaty with the British which could have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to continue. Something needed to be done, rapidly.

    We’ll conclude this tale in our next and final video in this series- Hancock: United at Last.

    [ad_2]

    Daven Hiskey

    Source link