All posts by Brooke Binkowski

Is Arkansas Law Enforcement Photographing Inmates in ‘Nike’ Gear?

The Union County, Arkansas sheriff’s department has responded to widespread outrage in October 2018 about its policy of photographing inmates in shirts bearing the Nike slogan:

The sheriff’s department says, despite claims from high-profile activists to the contrary, that it was not intended as a protest or a slam against either the brand or its face, former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was catapulted from a sports name to a household name in 2016 when he began kneeling during the national anthem before football games in order to protest police brutality and extrajudicial killings. Kaepernick was subsequently hired by Nike in September 2018 to be the face of its brand:

Sheriff Ricky Roberts says the shirts were given to people who came into their jail without “proper attire during the booking process.”  Roberts says the shirts weren’t purchased by his department — but rather, already on-hand.

“We are not, and will not, be influenced by current political and social debates in the media,” Roberts said in a statement.  “This shirt is not only in use now, but has also been for several months prior.  We have taken steps to rectify this issue and insure that this will never happen again.”

 

letter.png
Subsequent reports show boxes of used clothing in the department:

Not long after images from the Union County Sheriff’s Department began getting shared on social media, the office removed all mugshots from its site:

In Wednesday social media posts, activist Shaun King accused the sheriff’s office of using shirts to mock Nike and former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

About 9 p.m. Wednesday, less than an hour after King posted the allegation, the sheriff’s office removed all photos of inmates from the jail’s online roster.

Though King’s post features two Nike shirts — a large, black T-shirt with NIKE ATHLETICS in boldface font above Nike’s signature check mark and a black polo shirt with a small white Nike swoosh in the upper right-hand corner — the second shirt could be seen in mug shots as far back as July, before the Sept. 3 announcement of the Nike-Kaepernick deal.

The NIKE ATHLETICS shirt began to show up in mug shots around Sept. 15, according to the jail’s roster.

Roberts said the sheriff’s office did not buy the shirts but they were “on hand and available.”

“We are not, and will, not be influenced by current political and social debates in the media,” the sheriff wrote.

Roberts noted that one of the shirts has been used “for several months.”

It was not immediately clear how long the Nike shirts have been used to (in the sheriff’s words) cover improper attire, how many shirts are available overall, or what other brand names are offered as choices.

The post Is Arkansas Law Enforcement Photographing Inmates in ‘Nike’ Gear? appeared first on What's True?.

About Those Submerged Planes in Florida…

When Hurricane Michael slammed into Mexico Beach, Florida on October 10th, 2018, the massive storm caused as-yet untold amounts of damage, leveling homes for miles:

Amid images of survivors and the aftermath, the usual hurricane hoaxes began to appear, like this one:

Caption: “Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport – Panama City Beach, FL”
The post was shared by thousands, despite the exact same image being used with abandon during Harvey, but purporting to show the Houston airport following 2017’s devastating Hurricane Harvey:

In reality, the image isn’t even a photograph but a digital mockup from artist Nickolay Lamm, part of a series showing the potential effects of climate change; the article also contains images showing what the same airport (which is LaGuardia, for the record) might look like at sea level rises at five, 12, and 25 feet. (The hoax used the image showing 25 feet.)

There are many scenes showing Michael’s devastating power and its aftermath. This one, however, is not one of them. And while we don’t ever claim to be in the business of predicting the future, we can say with confidence that when the inevitable “shark swimming through the streets after the hurricane” image appears, it won’t be real either.

The post About Those Submerged Planes in Florida… appeared first on What's True?.

‘Bovine Tuberculosis’ Appearing in Michigan?

In October 2018, a warning appeared and made its way around the usual internet circles to warn against eating meat from deer afflicted with “bovine tuberculosis.” The warning was accompanied by a rather unappetizing photograph of a lesion-studded hunk of meat that showed what people should avoid:

Michigan DNR to hunters: Test your deer for bovine tuberculosis
This warning (and the accompanying photograph) is legitimate, although it is somewhat outdated. The original article appeared on Michigan.gov in July 2017:

Since 1995, Michigan has been testing white-tailed deer for bovine tuberculosis year-round. Michigan has the longest- running continuous wildlife TB surveillance program in the world.

“Most Michiganders, and even most policymakers, don’t realize how much we’ve learned about bTB in the last 20 years”, said Dan O’Brien, veterinary specialist with DNR’s wildlife disease lab. “The research we’ve done here in Michigan is respected around the world.

“Other countries dealing with similar outbreaks of bTB continue to watch our situation with great interest. At this point, we know what it will take to get rid of bTB. Whether we as a state will choose to make that happen though is still an open question.”

The original warning was belched back into the public consciousness in October 2018 because a large cattle herd in Alcona County was found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis, the 73rd herd so infected since 1998:

Bovine TB is a bacterial disease that also has infected free-ranging whitetail deer in parts of the northeastern Lower Peninsula.

Cattle in Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency and Oscoda counties must be tested before they are moved off the farm, which can help prevent the illness from spreading.

Assistant State Veterinarian Nancy Barr says farmers in that area should do all they can to prevent deer from having contact with cattle feeding and watering areas.

The original warning simply urges hunters to get the wild deer they kill tested free of charge before consumption, even if it looks healthy. Humans as well as cattle can potentially contract bovine tuberculosis, which is relatively rare, but potentially fatal if left untreated.

The post ‘Bovine Tuberculosis’ Appearing in Michigan? appeared first on What's True?.

Taylor Swift’s Political Endorsements: The Rumors and the Reality

Pop superstar Taylor Swift — once a darling of the far-right and alt-right crowds because of her “Aryan goddess” looks and their own fevered imaginations — broke a years-long policy of silence on political matters in October 2018 to endorse a political party on her Instagram account:

I’m writing this post about the upcoming midterm elections on November 6th, in which I’ll be voting in the state of Tennessee. In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now. I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country. I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent.

I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love. Running for Senate in the state of Tennessee is a woman named Marsha Blackburn. As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry. These are not MY Tennessee values. I will be voting for Phil Bredesen for Senate and Jim Cooper for House of Representatives. Please, please educate yourself on the candidates running in your state and vote based on who most closely represents your values. For a lot of us, we may never find a candidate or party with whom we agree 100% on every issue, but we have to vote anyway.

So many intelligent, thoughtful, self-possessed people have turned 18 in the past two years and now have the right and privilege to make their vote count. But first you need to register, which is quick and easy to do. October 9th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in the state of TN. Go to vote.org and you can find all the info. Happy Voting! 🗳😃🌈

The endorsement caused ripples in political spheres, with everyone from pundits to the president weighing in on what they thought of her political leanings and affiliations. Hoaxes soon followed:

Taylor Swift hoax meme
Text: “In response to Taylor Swift’s anti-Republican remarks, Spotify & iTunes have dropped all of her songs from their playlists. This will cost her $millions.”
This claim comes from a Christopher Blair project called “America’s Last Line of Defense,” a well-known and well-documented satire and hoax site and Facebook page. Its “About” page makes that extremely clear:

Nothing on this page is real. It is a collection of the satirical whimsies of liberal trolls masquerading as conservatives. You have been warned.

That didn’t stop the story from trending, of course. However, Swift’s announcement did have at least one remarkable real-world effect:

“We are up to 65,000 registrations in a single 24-hour period since T. Swift’s post,” said Kamari Guthrie, director of communications for Vote.org.

For context, 190,178 new voters were registered nationwide in the entire month of September, while 56,669 were registered in August.

In Swift’s home state of Tennessee, where she voiced support for two Democratic candidates running in this year’s midterms, voter registrations have also jumped.

“Vote.org saw [Tennessee] registrations spike specifically since Taylor’s post,” Guthrie said. The organization has received 5,183 in the state so far this month — at least 2,144 of which were in the last 36 hours, she said, up from 2,811 new Tennessee voter registrations for the entire month of September and just 951 in August.

Guthrie said the site had also seen a big jump in the number of visitors since Swift’s post, with 155,940 unique visitors in the last 24 hours — second only to the number of people who visited on National Voter Registration Day on Sept. 25 when there were 304,942 unique visitors. (The average daily user count for the site is 14,078 in 2018.)

“Thank God for Taylor Swift,” said Guthrie.

Additionally, although we probably don’t need to even say this, Swift’s songs are still just as available on sites like iTunes and Spotify as they have always been.

The post Taylor Swift’s Political Endorsements: The Rumors and the Reality appeared first on What's True?.

LaCroix and its Chemical Additives

LaCroix sparkling water has had something of a moment, but anything popular comes with detractors. The fruity, low-calorie beverage met its own in October 2018 in the form of a class-action lawsuit that claims, among other things, that the drink contains ingredients used in cockroach insecticide.

Chicago-based law firm Beaumont Costales also slammed LaCroix for false advertising by listing only “water” and “natural flavors” as its ingredients, saying in a statement:

Beaumont Costales announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Cook County against LaCroix’s parent company National Beverage Corporation, on behalf of Lenora Rice and all those injured by the popular sparkling water brand’s false claims to be “all natural” and “100% natural.”  In fact, as the filing states, testing reveals that LaCroix contains a number of artificial ingredients, including linalool, which is used in cockroach insecticide.

[…]

The plaintiff Rice, desiring a healthy, natural beverage, was led to purchase LaCroix sparkling water because of the claims made on its packaging, advertising and web site to be “innocent,” “naturally essenced,” “all natural,” and “always 100% natural.”  However, LaCroix in fact contains ingredients that have been identified by the Food and Drug Administration as synthetic.  These chemicals include limonene, which can cause kidney toxicity and tumors; linalool propionate, which is used to treat cancer; and linalool, which is used in cockroach insecticide.

National Beverage Corporation, which is LaCroix’s parent company, swiftly responded to the announcement with a statement of its own:

National Beverage Corp. FIZZ, -0.95% categorically denies all allegations in a lawsuit filed today without basis in fact or law regarding the natural composition of its LaCroix sparkling waters. Natural flavors in LaCroix are derived from the natural essence oils from the named fruit used in each of the flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, those extracted flavors.

All essences contained in LaCroix are certified by our suppliers to be 100% natural.

What this appears to boil down to is a disagreement over exactly when something stops being “natural.” As evocative as the phrase “cockroach insecticide” here is, each of the ingredients listed originates in edible plants and has uses other than killing large, resilient bugs (or even small ones.)

Limonene, for example, is a terpene or a fragrant oil derived from citrus rinds, as described in the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem database:

Limonene is a monoterpene with a clear colourless liquid at room temperature, a naturally occurring chemical which is the major component in oil of oranges. Limonene is widely used as a flavor and fragrance and is listed to be generally recognized as safe in food by the Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 182. 60 in the Code of Federal Regulations, U. S. A. ). Limonene is a botanical (plant-derived) solvent of low toxicity.

PubChem gives linalool a similar description:

3, 7-Dimethyl-1, 6-octadien-3-ol is found in allspice. 3, 7-Dimethyl-1, 6-octadien-3-ol is a flavouring agent. 3, 7-Dimethyl-1, 6-octadien-3-ol is widespread natural occurrence as the optically active and racemic forms in over 200 essential oils. Also present in numerous fruits. Linalool is a naturally occurring terpene alcohol chemical found in many flowers and spice plants with many commercial applications, the majority of which are based on its pleasant scent (floral, with a touch of spiciness).

Linalool propionate’s definition is even more terse:

Linalyl propionate is found in ginger. Linalyl propionate is found in lavender and sage oils in an enantiomeric form. Linalyl propionate is used in perfumery and food flavourin[g.]

It is true that linalool and limonene are used in and as insecticides, as the citrus and lavender oils from which they are derived have proven repellent effects. As Popular Science points out, it is also true that the official definition of “natural” in this context is very forgiving:

According to the FDA, a “natural” ingredient that adds flavor to a food or drink must be from an animal or plant source. But those natural flavors could still contain ingredients that are artificial, such as preservatives. Even the agency’s definitions of “natural” and “synthetic” are far from clear. The three chemicals discussed here can be derived naturally, but even if they are not (and we likely won’t know until the case goes to court), they might simply be used as additives that are supposed to modify the natural flavor compound in some way.

Lastly, Clemens emphasizes, “the term ‘100 percent natural’ does not have a statutory status within the U.S.” It’s a nebulous phrase that can mean whatever you want it to mean. LaCroix has its own interpretation, and just because that doesn’t jive with what you initially thought doesn’t necessarily mean it was fraudulent to consumers. “All-natural” labels exist solely to tempt you into buying stuff. They’re all meaningless, so LaCroix is not unique in this regard.

In other words, it’s true that some of the ingredients in LaCroix are also used as insecticides or insect repellent. It’s also true that those same ingredients are used as flavorings that are regarded as safe to eat — provided you’re a human and not, in some monstrous Kafkaesque twist, a cockroach.

The post LaCroix and its Chemical Additives appeared first on What's True?.

Brazil Holds Election Amid Disinformation, Propaganda Crisis

Imagine, if you will: A presidential election in which even the most basic facts are riddled with confusing disinformation, a far-right candidate appealing to authoritarians and repulsing many women with misogynistic comments, and connections to political aspirants such as Marine Le Pen and Steve Bannon.

This is Brazil in 2018, and the person who was projected to win the race is in jail, which effectively kept him out of the election.

In the power vacuum that has followed Lula’s imprisonment, Jair Bolsonaro has more than a fighting chance at leading a country that has swung hard right. In the final days of campaigning, under a cloud of fraudulent news and in the aftermath of a stabbing attack, Bolsonaro has pulled ahead of other candidates.

Much is at stake in Brazil’s elections, which are for president, 27 state governorships, much of Congress and the majority of its Senate and Chamber of Deputies, and the races have been remarkable for their volatility and unpredictability — aided by various over-the-top statements from Bolsonaro and his running mate:

“From what I see in the streets, I won’t accept any result that is not my election,” the populist politician told Brazilian broadcaster TV Band.

Bolsonaro, a retired army captain, has led an ill-tempered campaign in what has been Brazil’s most polarizing election since the country’s return to democracy in 1985. He has previously said he doesn’t trust Brazil’s top electoral court and accused the rival left-wing Workers’ Party of resorting to fraud as its plan B in the upcoming vote.

His right-wing running mate, retired General Hamilton Mourao, has also said that Brazil’s armed forces should launch a coup if the judiciary is not ridded of political corruption.

The Bolsonaro campaign has so far not provided any evidence of potential voter fraud.

The race has been riddled with disinformation and propaganda spread by Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, but especially on WhatsApp. The social media landscape has become so divided that politicians are appealing for unity:

“Today, separating rationality from emotion is becoming almost impossible in Brazil,” writes Portuguese journalist Manuel Serrano. “Reason is increasingly unable to moderate political debate.”

Emotions are so high that an attacker tried to kill the leading candidate, Jair Bolsonaro of the far-right Social Liberal Party, on Sept. 6. From a hospital, Mr. Bolsonaro now campaigns over social media to his 8.5 million followers. But in a sign of how much fake news dominates social media, of the 1.7 million mentions on Twitter about the attack, more than 40 percent doubted that it happened.

The polarization of Brazil led a former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, to make a public appeal for voters to use the campaign to build cohesion. He asked that people talk to all members of society, not only those they agree with. In addition, Brazilian news organizations as well as Facebook (which owns WhatsApp) have been working to counter fake news and hate speech that appears on social media.

Corrosive hoax stories have been a matter of concern for months. As the University of Texas’s Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas reported in June 2018, even measures against so-called “fake news” have been used against journalists:

The journalist Natalia Viana, director of Agência Pública, published in the May 25 edition of the weekly newsletter of the publication her account of the debate about “fake news” that happened in the Chamber of Deputies on May 22, the day before the launch of the parliamentary front. According to her, the event became “an arena for attacking journalists.”

Viana said that one of the guests of the event was Carlos Augusto de Morais Afonso, who, after a story from newspaper O Globo, was revealed to the public as the creator of the site Ceticismo Político (Political Skepticism). In March, the site helped to amplify fraudulent news about councilwoman Marielle Franco, of Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL), the day after her murder in the center of Rio de Janeiro. Anderson Gomes, driver of the car in which she was riding, was also killed in the attack.

According to the director of Pública, Afonso used his time in the debate in the Chamber of Deputies “to attack fact-checking organizations Agência Lupa e Aos Fatos.” The two agencies were targeted by online attacks due to a partnership with Facebook, launched May 10, against the spread of fake news on the social network.

In the debate, Afonso presented the results of a “dossier” with posts from Lupa, Aos Fatos and Pública journalists from their profiles on social networks. In the document, journalists are ideologically classified as “left”, “extreme left” or “undefined,” and this classification is used to question the reputation of the agencies. “That is, exposing and attacking journalists for doing journalism,” Viana wrote.

The few fact-checking outfits that are debunking Brazilian disinformation and misinformation are not enough, especially in light of a burgeoning human rights crisis that is taking place along its northern border, as the situation in Venezuela continues to deteriorate:

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans are fleeing the economic and social collapse that has led to runaway inflation (+2,600% in 2017 and an estimated +13,000% in 2018 according to the IMF and deficiency in several major social sectors such as health and education.

These inflation rates have brought about serious shortages that have led to problems of malnutrition and the development of diseases such as skin infections, malaria, and diarrhoea. The majority of medicine and surgical equipment is now lacking, and hospitals have problems with regular water supply.

From January 2017 to May 2018, an estimated 52,000 Venezuelans have entered Brazil and approximately 800 continue to cross the border each day. Authorities are expecting the continuation of a dense flow of arrivals on the territory.

The massive upheaval and demographic changes taking place against a backdrop of a long election cycle in South America’s relatively young democracies make Brazil especially vulnerable to far-right authoritarian messaging, such as that offered by front-runner Jair Bolsonaro:

Bolsonaro, a seven-term congressman who has praised the old military dictatorship here, has seen his support extend beyond the fringe amid a failure of Brazil’s traditional political classes, which have been deeply tarnished by corruption. Bolsonaro, in contrast, is viewed as a relatively untainted outsider. He has won backing, even among voter groups he has insulted, by zeroing in on the three issues Brazilians care most about: the economy, corruption and a crime wave, which he has vowed to tackle with zero tolerance.

“I voted for Bolsonaro because I’m tired of politicians being the same,” said Maria Aparecida de Oliveira, a 63-year-old housekeeper casting her ballot in an upper-middle-class district of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city. “Even if he is a little crazy, someone needs to bring change.”

Notorious “political strategist” Steve Bannon, who has been tied to the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal, has also made an appearance in Brazil’s election. “It was a pleasure to meet STEVE BANNON,strategist in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” tweeted Jair Bolsonaro’s politician son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who in the final days of the race was charged with threatening a female journalist. “We had a great conversation and we share the same worldview.He said be an enthusiast of Bolsonaro’s campaign and we are certainly in touch to join forces,especially against cultural marxism.”

Eduardo Bolsonaro also claimed that his father is part of a “global movement” that includes, among others, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and Donald Trump. The Brazilian establishment is terrified, he says, “because they know how much we are going to change things.”

The post Brazil Holds Election Amid Disinformation, Propaganda Crisis appeared first on What's True?.

Did President Donald Trump Board Air Force One With Paper Stuck to His Shoe?

A viral video making the social media rounds on October 4th, 2018 shows President Donald Trump carefully ascending the stairs to Air Force One on the tarmac in Minneapolis, Minnesota — with a piece of paper stuck to the back of his left shoe, then pausing at the top and waving before disappearing into the airplane:

The video is real, and it was taken on October 4th, 2018 during Trump’s appearance in Minneapolis:

“Excuse me, Mr. President, I believe you have some toilet paper stuck to your shoe” — said no one.

Alas, President Trump made an embarrassing climb into Air Force One on Thursday with what appeared to be some sort of paper product attached to the bottom of his shoe.

Video showed him step out of a limousine in front of the aircraft at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and start up the staircase with a couple squares of toilet paper or, perhaps, a napkin, billowing in the wind with each step. What about the dozen or so people surrounding him?

It is not clear whether the offending piece of paper was toilet paper (as it was described in many places) or if it was a napkin or simply a bit of wayward trash:

Readers and pundits alike pointed out that no one stopped the president to tell him that he was in a potentially humiliating situation, which perhaps added to the perception that the video might have been a hoax.

The post Did President Donald Trump Board Air Force One With Paper Stuck to His Shoe? appeared first on What's True?.

Was Brett Kavanaugh’s Home Vandalized?

In early October 2018, the usual purveyors and pushers of disinformation were anxious to take advantage of the controversy surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to ride the ad revenue wave from whatever satire or clickbait they could think up.

Most of that centered around various outlandish rumors surrounding his multiple accusers, but at least one hoax story appeared to report that Kavanaugh’s home had been vandalized:

The family home of Judge Brett Kavanaugh was a scene right out of a frat party gone wrong yesterday, as over 200 left-wing protesters, many wearing masks, shouted profane slogans, waved signs, and threw calendars, bricks, and bottles at the property. Kavanaugh himself was not in the residence, as he is currently in Washington for a symposium on anger management. His wife and children vacated the premisis and are currently housed in an unknown location for their own safety.

The story is from a site that is clearly labeled “satire,” but the text and accompanying photograph were quickly picked up by other junk sites with no such disclaimer. The image of the vandalized house comes not from an unfortunate Kavanaugh event, but from a 2016 story in which a home in Ancaster, Ontario was covered in graffiti after its owner chopped down a city-owned tree.

 

The post Was Brett Kavanaugh’s Home Vandalized? appeared first on What's True?.

Do Mobile Phones and Other 4G Devices Contain an ‘E911 Chip’?

Testing for a new cellular phone alert system (the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, also known as IPAWS) began on October 3rd, 2018, with a tone and a message sent across mobile networks.

The grumbling began almost immediately, as startled or irritated Americans reacted to the unsolicited (but anticipated) test, but the griping turned into conspiracy theorizing almost immediately, when John McAfee (of antivirus fame) claimed that the tone that accompanied the alert activates a special chip in 4G phones:

The tweet read:

The “Presidential alerts”: they are capable of accessing the E911 chip in your phones – giving them full access to your location, microphone, camera and every function of your phone. This not a rant, this is from me, still one of the leading cybersecurity experts. Wake up people!

First, McAfee said “your phones,” but then later backtracked, claiming he meant 4G devices only and advising people to only use models from 2013 or earlier.

Cybersecurity experts instantly challenged McAfee’s claims on a very simple basis: The “e911 chip” does not exist. “Just for the record,” tweeted British security expert Kevin Beaumont, “there’s no E911 chip in your phone as there’s no such thing as an E911 chip. And that’s just beginning of the first sentence of John’s tweet.”  (“Oh god,” he tweeted a few hours after that, “People are sharing that stupid John Mcafee E911 chip tweet on my Facebook feed too (and I don’t have any InfoSec friends there), it’s going viral.”)

The claim was perhaps given a boost by an unrelated Bloomberg report that came out the next day, which detailed how China used tiny chips embedded in hardware manufactured within the country in order to eavesdrop on information, infiltrate companies, and intercept high-level government missives and corporate secrets. It’s also true that Enhanced 911, or E911, has existed for years and as of 2015 is being integrated into all traditional 911 calls to help with location services, but it is not contingent on any one special chip. Additionally, there’s no reason any sort of “presidential alert” would be needed to activate such a chip.

But this was unrelated to McAfee’s claims, for which he has offered little proof — although that didn’t stop some organizations, like Russian state-run networks, from running uncritically with the story regardless. McAfee also did not elaborate on the fact that no chip is needed to send information to companies or government entities, segueing instead to promoting a planned United States presidential run on the Libertarian ticket — and suggesting that security was perhaps, in this case, not his actual concern.

However, since it is frustratingly difficult to prove the nonexistence of something across the board, we rate this statement Unknown.

The post Do Mobile Phones and Other 4G Devices Contain an ‘E911 Chip’? appeared first on What's True?.

Were the Obamas Forced to Surrender Their Law Licenses?

In early October 2018, many people in the United States and abroad were closely watching the twists and turns around a Supreme Court nomination as multiple women accused the nominee of committing or abetting sexual assault. Almost immediately, bots, trolls, and useful idiots picked up on the controversy, muddying the waters with rumors, gossip, and outright fabrications about his accusers.

As the investigation into the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh continued and the discussion about him spiraled into new territory, the usual suspects resurrected a years-old chain email, spreading it across social media.

The original looked something like this, although there were some variations as time went on:

Barack Obama — Editor of the Harvard Law Review — Has No Law License?

I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel — and that’s a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license.

But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here’s the results from the ARDC Website:

She “voluntarily surrendered” her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you “voluntarily surrender” you license five seconds before the state suspends you.

Here’s an illustration: I’m a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I’ve done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license — simply because it’s easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I’ve worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.

I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can’t say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would “Voluntarily surrender” her license, but Illinois does not have it’s 1993 records online.

But when I searched for “Obama”, I found this:

“Voluntarily retired” — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.

This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn’t seem to give a crap about his law license.

Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly.

As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything.
As in, “there’s a block on that information” kind of thing.

So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady — who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. There’s more to this story, I’m sure. I’ll let you know when I find it.

Needless to say, in the years since, “more to the story” never appeared.

A quick search of the state of Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission website shows that Barack Obama’s law license was changed to “retired” in 2008, when he was elected president (the year before, he had switched it to “voluntarily inactive” in order to focus on his presidential run, and Michelle Obama has been listed as “voluntarily inactive” since 1993, when she left law and entered the public sector. Since then, neither has been embroiled in any sort of scandal that would require them to turn in their (inactive) law licenses.

As University of California, Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in 2010 about this very rumor:

4. The article continues, “President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a ‘lawyer’. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he ‘fibbed’ on his bar application.” And “possibly” because the Illuminati ordered the Bar to do it, but that’s just empty hypothesizing, with no actual evidence. The fact that someone who doesn’t actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you’re not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he’s a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer — as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field — even if he is no longer a member of the bar.

5. It then says, “Michelle Obama ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993.” Again, I’m not sure what the quotes mean, but the bar record says that she is “Voluntarily inactive.” This is even more common for lawyers who don’t need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don’t appear in court or counsel clients other than employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money (see Rule 756) than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes (Rule 790), unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived). The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it’s pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that (as I did in early 2002); again, in Illinois, see Rule 756.

Michelle and Barack Obama are also listed on the Illinois State Bar Association’s official website as honorary members (as are Hillary Clinton and Harper Lee for her portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird) which would be extremely strange if they had both lost their licenses in disgrace.

While we cannot explain the search engine lag time, we did not experience anything like it during our own tests, suggesting that might be less to do with the engine and more to do with the person conducting the search to begin with.

The post Were the Obamas Forced to Surrender Their Law Licenses? appeared first on What's True?.

Bots, Trolls Propelled Faux ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ Controversy

The “Star Wars” franchise was not immune from the sort of controversy that has seeped into every tiny nook and cranny of the American public discourse, thanks to the ubiquity of social media and those who wish to exploit conflicts in order to create chaos.

In that vein, the film Star Wars: The Last Jedi was more of the same. A piece in Wired details writer Angela Watercutter’s experience in late 2017 after writing an article praising the film’s ethnic diversity and strong female characters with a Facebook message she received from a stranger filled with racial epithets and exhortations to kill herself:

Hearing that I don’t “get” Star Wars is fairly common, but this response seemed odd, like the person was looking to have a political debate, not an artistic one. My piece had touched on politics, of course, but it was more about inclusivity in casting movies. The whole thing just seemed odd. Trolls are gonna troll, but this one seemed to be on a mission.

It seems that there may have been a specific mission after all, as a new paper from journalist-turned-academic Morten Bay points out. The University of California, Los Angeles researcher says that the online political discourse is still being influenced by preprogrammed bots and online operatives — and what’s more, he says, the effect is spreading as more populations adopt Kremlin-style tactics for manipulating public discourse:

….The Last Jedi fan conflict is not just an interesting case because it is a microcosm of the overall political discourse on social media in the Trump era, but also because it is possible to identify organized and deliberate attempts at right-wing political persuasion and/or defense of conservative values as well as sexism, racism and homophobia in the social media discussions about the film. It is important to stress, of course, that there are also a substantial number of fans who simply think The Last Jedi is a bad film and who use social media to express their disappointment. Regardless of motive, almost all negative fans express the belief that they are in the majority and that most Star Wars fans dislike The Last Jedi.

Bey’s paper uses an analysis of tweets sent directly to Last Jedi director Rian Johnson, concluding that (despite later reports about this very paper to the contrary, characterizing the entire pushback as a Russian disinformation campaign), bots and trolls share a common impetus with what appears to be real, aggrieved fans on social media:

Whether the criticism comes from a Russian troll/bot or from a fan who feels increasingly distant from the values presented in the new Star Wars films, the objective of their actions is a political one. Russian trolls weaponize Star Wars criticism as an instrument of information warfare with the purpose of pushing for political change, while it is weaponized by right-wing fans to forward a conservative agenda and for some it is a pushback against what they perceive as a feminist/social justice onslaught.

It’s very likely then, according to this study, that Russian influence operations saw, rather than created, an opportunity for creating chaos and maximizing opportunities to distract the American public and reporters with some well-timed and well-placed trolling. This, naturally, furthers the Kremlin’s goals of locating and widening cracks in American society and getting groups within it to turn on one another to collapse any and all sense of community; when the media picks up on the conflicts, it only gives them more oxygen.

Several scholars (Rider and Peters, 2018; Fuchs, 2017; Howard et al., 2017; Kaminska et al., 2017) have shown how Russian influence operators exploit precisely this type of cognitive dissonance to persuade individual social media users that their values are under attack, cultivating and advancing polarization and disparity.

The complaints about a perceived politicization of Star Wars: The Last Jedi (and the idea that it was written deliberately to brainwash viewers into accepting ethnic and gender diversity) fly in the face of the reality, which is that the entire franchise has had political leanings and a “social justice” message since its beginnings in the 1970s, and that Disney or director Rian Johnson did not suddenly insert a leftist and feminist message into the series. However, when it comes to trolling, disinformation, and breaking down the public discourse, facts rarely come into play.

The post Bots, Trolls Propelled Faux ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ Controversy appeared first on What's True?.

Trump Administration Ends Visas to Unmarried Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats

On October 1, 2018, as much of the United States was preoccupied with stories about sexual assault, drinking, and fighting by a Supreme Court nominee, the Trump administration enacted a policy change affecting diplomats.

A September 13 memo to United Nations staff laid out the changes:

3. Since 2009, the United Nations has been informed that the Department of State does not issue a G-4 visa for opposite-sex domestic partners.

4. The diplomatic note informs the United Nations that the Department of State will not issue a G-4 visa for same-sex domestic partners. As of 1 October 2018, samesex domestic partners accompanying or seeking to join newly arrived United Nations officials must provide proof of marriage to be eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change into such status.

5. Currently accredited same-sex domestic partners of United Nations officials who wish to maintain their G-4 visa must be ready to submit proof of marriage by 31 December 2018. After 31 December 2018, they will be expected to leave the United States within 30 days unless they submit the required proof of marriage or have obtained separate authorization to remain in the country through a change of non-immigrant status.

Since 2009, the United States had accepted same-sex partners as family members when granting certain types of diplomatic visas, but now will only accept legally married spouses when granting new visa accreditations.

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. portrayed the decision—which foreign diplomats fear will increase hardships for same-sex couples in countries that don’t recognize same-sex marriage—as an effort to bring its international visa practices in line with current U.S. policy. In light of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. extends diplomatic visas only to married spouses of U.S. diplomats.

Former United States ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power tweeted that the changes are “needlessly cruel” and “bigoted”:

The post Trump Administration Ends Visas to Unmarried Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats appeared first on What's True?.

Did a Veteran Sex Crimes Prosecutor Say Christine Blasey Ford ‘Has No Case’?

October 2018 opened with confusion among the American political set over an investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after multiple women publicly accused him of sexual assault.

One woman, California psychology professor and Stanford University researcher Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, appeared during a day-long hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late September to answer questions about what exactly happened at that party sometime during the summer of 1982. Her testimony was taken by a career sex crimes prosecutor from Maricopa County, Arizona named Rachel Mitchell, who duly provided a five-page report, which read in part:

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

It is true, as was reported by multiple outlets, that Mitchell flatly stated in her report that she believes that given Blasey Ford’s testimony, there is no case against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. However, much of the coverage of this assessment lacks basic context, as pointed out by prosecutor-turned-reporter Deanna Paul in The Washington Post:

Criminal procedure permits drawn-out and detailed direct and cross-examinations in a court of law controlled by a judge and in front of an impartial jury. Mitchell had no independent opportunity to do either.

She acknowledged this during the hearing, asking Ford whether she knew that the process — five-minute intervals of questioning — was not the ideal environment to determine a sexual assault survivor’s credibility. Thus, it’s also not how any reasonable prosecutor would determine whether to move forward.

Mitchell also appeared to acknowledge this in her report:

There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.

Because Mitchell only questioned Blasey Ford and not Kavanaugh during the hearing (questions for him were handled by the Senate Judicial Committee), and because this was simply a nomination hearing rather than a criminal investigation, this is less a report and more a legal analysis based on available evidence heard by Mitchell at that time. Therefore, it is true that this was her conclusion, but not true that hers was the definitive statement on the topic.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into multiple sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh.

The post Did a Veteran Sex Crimes Prosecutor Say Christine Blasey Ford ‘Has No Case’? appeared first on What's True?.

The ‘Amy Schumer Is Actually Christine Blasey Ford’ Conspiracy Theory

The days following a September 27th, 2018 hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Palo Alto University professor and Stanford research psychologist Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh violently assaulted her during a party more than three decades before, swirled with increasingly bizarre stories about a grand conspiracy.

One such rumor centered around Dr. Ford not actually existing. Instead, according to this particular theory, she is a piece of performance art created and sustained for many years by none other than actress and comedian Amy Schumer at the behest of her relative Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York):

Despite the lack of any evidence that Amy Schumer has been donning prosthetics to play the part of Dr. Ford for many years, and a mountain of replicable evidence that they are indeed two separate people, the theory gained traction in some of the more credulous corners of the internet, pushed by the usual array of bots, trolls, and useful idiots (mostly at the #Pizzagate and #QAnon levels of social media):

Conspiracy meme about Amy Schumer and Christine Blasey Ford being the same person

It is true, as is claimed above, that comedian and actor Amy Schumer is a semi-distant relative of Sen. Chuck Schumer (the New York Democrat is her father’s cousin.) This is hardly secret knowledge, as the Washington Post reported in 2014:

Schumer the comedian (that would be Amy) is the creator and star of “Inside Amy Schumer,” an Emmy-nominated sketch comedy series. Her dad, Gordon Schumer, is the senator’s cousin.

“I highly doubt he has ever seen my act,” said Amy Schumer in a 2011 interview with LA Weekly about her first cousin once removed (that would be Chuck). But that might have changed. After the White House Correspondents Association dinner in May, the senator told New York Daily News that he planned to check out Ms. Schumer’s act, which can reportedly get a little raunchy.

Sunday’s run-in was both a Kodak moment and a clear reminder of the senator’s Hollywood swag.

What is not true is that there is any link at all between Amy Schumer and Christine Blasey Ford, much less that one is playing the other in prosthetic makeup. Even the disinformation-type meme “proving” the resemblance between the two women (above) shows only the slightest of incidental resemblances.

Add to that the fact that Amy Schumer would have only been a year old in 1982 (when Brett Kavanaugh allegedly drunkenly groped and harassed a 15-year-old Christine Ford, and that there are photographs documenting her existence every step of the way, including a 1999 high school yearbook photograph showing her as “Class Clown,” and this particular conspiracy fever dream falls apart before it even gets out of the gate.

The post The ‘Amy Schumer Is Actually Christine Blasey Ford’ Conspiracy Theory appeared first on What's True?.

Did the WSJ Report That a Sex Crimes Prosecutor Was Pulled from a Hearing for Asking Too Many Questions?

As the United States debated putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite multiple assault allegations, rumors began to fly about a hearing the previous day, including a bombshell that purportedly appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

This tweet quickly traveled far and wide, but had no citation or direct quotes.

While it is true that Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona’s Maricopa County, abruptly stopped after questioning Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor who is among the women publicly accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party in 1982 there is no story in the Wall Street Journal  as of this writing that backs up the assertion that it was because she was about to stumble on evidence that proved that Kavanaugh was lying.

It is true that there has been speculation and analysis around Mitchell’s abrupt departure from questioning Kavanaugh after Dr. Blasey Ford, but there has not been any definitive statement made about it — and not in the Wall Street Journal.

As the WSJ’s editor-in-chief put it:

For that reason, we rate this claim Not True.

The post Did the WSJ Report That a Sex Crimes Prosecutor Was Pulled from a Hearing for Asking Too Many Questions? appeared first on What's True?.

Did Two Men Confess to Assaulting a Woman Accusing a Supreme Court Nominee?

On the eve of a scheduled hearing for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has credibly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party in 1982, what looked like a potential bombshell story appeared on social media:

That was quickly followed by the usual suspects claiming that these anonymous interviews constituted irrefutable proof of nominee Kavanaugh’s innocence. “Kavanaugh Cleared: Two Men Confess to Sexually Assaulting Christine Blasey Ford,” blared one such headline on the disreputable NeonNettle.com, hedging its bets in the text of the article:

If true, the men in question are putting themselves in serious legal jeopardy as there is no statute of limitations for rape in Maryland, where the alleged attack transpired.

[…]

One thing for sure is that these latest “confessions” highlight the uncertainty that accompanies claims that cannot be substantiated with any evidence, which makes them all — including those of Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers — very suspect.

However, the claims came without any corroborating evidence (no one would reveal the confessors’ identities, much less introduce their testimony) so it remains impossible to say whether the unnamed men were telling the truth, or indeed, if they even exist.

The post Did Two Men Confess to Assaulting a Woman Accusing a Supreme Court Nominee? appeared first on What's True?.

Investigative Journalists: Russian Agents Were Responsible for Britain Poisonings

On March 4, 2018, the quiet and picturesque British town of Salisbury was rocked by the discovery of former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia Skripal foaming at their mouths on a bench outside an Italian restaurant. The culprit: Novichok, a nerve agent known to have been developed and used by the Kremlin. As BBC reported, the name “Novichok” means “newcomer”:

They were known as fourth-generation chemical weapons and were developed under a Soviet programme codenamed Foliant.

Novichok’s existence was revealed by chemist Dr Vil Mirzayanov in the 1990s, via Russian media. He later defected to the US, where he published the chemical formula in his book, State Secrets.

Just weeks later and less than eight miles (13 kilometers) away on June 30, 2018 in Amesbury, two people, Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley, were exposed to the same nerve agent. Sturgess died, but Rowley survived the attack.

Rowley’s older brother Matthew was more pessimistic about his brother’s condition. He said: “I spoke to doctors and nurses and they say it doesn’t look good. He has been diagnosed with meningitis. He has also lost use of all his limbs. Charlie’s speech has changed completely – the tone of his voice is almost incoherent. He sounds like a child, like a 10-year-old boy.”

When Rowley was discharged from hospital, health chiefs made it clear he had been decontaminated but he posed no risk to the community. He is said to be on a ward with six other people, which suggests strongly that doctors do not believe he is still suffering from the effects of novichok.

Rowley told investigators that the nerve agent was in a perfume bottle that he found and gave to Sturgess, but he could not remember exactly where. Investigators quickly linked the two poisonings, although they have said that Sturgess and Rowley were simply innocent bystanders.

Not long after the Skripals’ poisoning, Britain publicly accused Russia of carrying it out, with Foreign Minister Boris Johnson telling reporters that its denials were “increasingly absurd,” and that the Kremlin was attempting to “conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies and obfuscation” in a pattern that is by now likely very familiar to anyone who has followed the twists and turned of so-called “fake news” and disinformation.

The two suspects named in the case, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, have denied that they were involved, saying they were nothing more than a pair of fitness instructors visiting Salisbury as tourists at an inopportune time:

On Thursday morning—a little more than a week after they were named as suspects and a day after Vladimir Putin identified them as “civilians”—two men answering to the names of Petrov and Boshirov were interviewed on RT, the state-sponsored Russian news channel. Sitting in a beige room at a large table, they wanted to make clear that there had been a big misunderstanding. “This whole situation is just a fantastic, fatal coincidence,” Petrov said, in Russian, swivelling slightly in his chair. The truth was that they were ordinary guys. Petrov and Boshirov were their real names. They were fitness instructors—they didn’t want to say more—who advised their clients on which vitamins and “micro-elements” to take. A friend had been telling them for a long time that they should really try to check out Salisbury Cathedral. “It’s a touristic city,” Boshirov explained. “There’s a famous cathedral there, the Salisbury Cathedral. It’s famous not just in all of Europe—it’s famous all over the world, I think. It’s famous for its hundred-and-twenty-three-metre spire. It’s famous for its clock, the first clock made in the world that still runs.”

On September 26, 2018, investigative website Bellingcat announced that it had been able to confirm the true identity of one of the men previously identified as tourists, saying Ruslan Boshirov’s true identity is about as far from a fitness instructor and tourist as one can get:

The suspect using the cover identity of “Ruslan Boshirov” is in fact Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga, a highly decorated GRU officer bestowed with Russia’s highest state award, Hero of the Russian Federation. Following Bellingcat’s own identification, multiple sources familiar with the person and/or the investigation have confirmed the suspect’s identity.

This finding eliminates any remaining doubt that the two suspects in the Novichok poisonings were in fact Russian officers operating on a clandestine government mission.

The story was anticipated, but it still sent shockwaves through global media and even louder denials — not to mention ominous warnings — from Russian authorities, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

On Wednesday, two investigative online news organizations reported that one of the men who allegedly smeared poison onto the door handle of defected Russian spy Sergei Skripal was Col. Anatoliy Chepiga, a high-ranking member of the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova Thursday dismissed the report in a Facebook post, saying “there is no proof” and that the release was aimed to coincide with an address at the United Nations Security Council by British Prime Minister Theresa May. A spokeswoman for the U.K. Home Office declined to comment on the report, citing an ongoing probe into the matter.

However, despite the denials, disinformation, and lack of clarity over what this new information may change about the investigation, the available evidence is showing a trail from the two separate poisonings that appears to lead directly to the Kremlin.

The post Investigative Journalists: Russian Agents Were Responsible for Britain Poisonings appeared first on What's True?.

Justin Trudeau’s Surprise Conversion

In order to boost circulation and rake in more advertising money, hoax and satire sites will sometimes re-run some of their older work hoping to catch clicks while the topics of their stories are once again relevant.

This is a common practice with many media sites, but satirical or fake stories can wind up getting pushed back into the ecosystem if the topic is complicated or controversial, further muddying the discourse. There are also entities invested in smearing others for political or personal reasons who enthusiastically join in.

Such was the case in August 2018, when a years-old hoax about Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau suddenly began to pop up again, pushed by the usual array of bots and trolls.

According to these stories, Trudeau had “recently” (but secretly, naturally) converted to Islam,

This story is a hoax. Although its 2018 versions appear to be intended to smear Trudeau in some way by saying he is part of one of the world’s largest religions, this story apparently started life way back in the summer of 2016 as satire on a website called VaticanEnquirer.com. That story links to another page, TheGlobalSun.com, which is either now defunct or never existed to begin with, and all misspellings are from the original.

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, also dubbed as “Canada’s Obama”, announced he is converting from Christianity to Islam.

In a 13 minute press conference Friday, Trudeau explained his decision in his life:

“After meeting thousands of new Syrian refugees, listening to their stories and learning more about the Muslim faith, I have learned to love Islam and the people of Islam. Islam promotes peace, not violence and is in fact more peaceful that Christianity. I feel like this is the religion I belong with and I should identify as,” reported the theglobalsun.com

During the press conference, Trudeau dodged questions about his wife, Sophie, and children converting. All the Prime Ministe would say on the subject is that they are very supportive of his decision, but were unavailable for comment.

How do we know this story is satire? Because the site says so:

The Vatican Enquirer is a satirical look at headlines around the world. Billed as “the news closer to being a lie than the truth”, the website is meant to be fun, to entertain.  If it’s not here it’s because you have damaged the inter-net.

The stories are not real and purely fictional. All details are fabricated, and is not intended for readers under 18 years of age. Invented names are use in all of its stories, except in cases of known public figures being satirized. Any other use of real names is purely accidental and coincidental.

Other versions of this rumor included video purportedly “proving” Trudeau’s conversion to Islam:

This video is actually from a 2013 visit to a mosque in western Toronto, before Trudeau was elected prime minister:

Trudeau was leader of the Liberal Party when he visited the Jamea Masjid mosque in Surrey, British Columbia, in West Canada.

In the video, he is seen wearing traditional Islamic clothing as he delivers a speech that he begins with the Muslim greeting “peace be upon you.”

In his speech, he thanked worshipers for granting him the honor of praying with them, adding that the values of the holy month of Ramadan were also Canadian values.

The image showing Trudeau wearing a headdress was lifted directly from a 2016 photograph showing him with his son on Halloween, then flipped by someone so that a reverse image search would not be able to pull it up quite so easily, putting this iteration less into the “satirical” category of hoaxes and more of the “deliberate disinformation” one:

Despite these efforts, however, the hoax remains just that — a hoax.

The post Justin Trudeau’s Surprise Conversion appeared first on What's True?.

Was CRC Public Relations Registered as a Foreign Agent?

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court was already a topic of controversy well before multiple women came forward with credible claims that he had sexually harassed and victimized them during the summer of 2018.

Before Kavanaugh himself had even had a chance to respond to the charges publicly, others swooped into the discourse in apparent attempts to exonerate him. One such endeavor took the form of a long string of tweets from Ed Whelan, a writer for the National Review and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington, D.C. think tank dedicated — according to its website — to “applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.”

According to Whelan, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was the first woman to come forward with a story about the Supreme Court nominee attempting to rape her at a party thirty-five years before, was not sexually assaulted by a teenaged Brett Kavanaugh, but by another man roughly the same age who bore a passing resemblance to him. Whelan then put up full names, home addresses, floor plans, and photographs to support his doppelgänger thesis.

The backlash was swift and thorough. Whelan deleted the thread (although the tweets, of course, still live on in infamy and in screenshots), publicly apologized, and tried to resign from his EPPC post.

That particular story was not over yet, however. It soon emerged that he was not simply pushing a strange conspiracy theory on his own, but that it had been cooked up at least in part by Creative Response Concepts Public Relations, a firm that was until 2018 perhaps best known for its role in the so-called “Swift Boat” controversy that damaged John Kerry’s 2004 bid for United States president.

“After suggesting on Twitter on Tuesday that he had obtained information that would exculpate Kavanaugh from the sexual assault allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, Whelan worked over the next 48 hours with CRC and its president, Greg Mueller, to stoke the anticipation,” reported Politico:

A longtime friend of Kavanaugh’s, Whelan teased his reveal — even as he refused to discuss it with other colleagues and close friends, a half dozen of them said. At the same time, he told them he was absolutely confident the information he had obtained would exculpate the judge.

The hype ping-ponged from Republicans on Capitol Hill to Kavanaugh’s team in the White House, evidence of an extraordinarily successful public relations campaign that ultimately backfired when Whelan’s theory — complete with architectural drawings and an alleged Kavanaugh doppelgänger — landed with a thud on Twitter Thursday evening.

In the aftermath of that revelation, and in the middle of an NBC investigation about his own purported sexual harassment, a former CRC employee named Garrett Ventry resigned from his post with Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), where he had been acting as a spokesperson and helping with “messaging” around Blasey’s assault claims. He had been working with Grassley’s office since taking a leave from CRC in July 2018.

But the story was not over yet:

This is true. The company registered as a foreign agent in 2005, meaning that the firm was an agency in the United States representing the interests of foreign powers in a political or “quasi-political” capacity; the law was originally passed in 1938 as a way to fight outside propaganda.

It covers most lobbying, advertising, public relations, and fundraising for “foreign principals” as defined, that is not of a commercial nature, or performed by Embassy officials. The Act requires agents to make periodic public disclosure of their identities, agency, activities, receipts and disbursements. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their status as foreign agents.

The 2005 document, readily available on fara.gov, clearly shows that Creative Response Concepts accepted money for working with Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russia prime minister who won the 2004 election after his popular outspoken opponent, the Western-friendly Victor Yushchenko, suddenly fell mysteriously ill. (Austrian doctors diagnosed it as dioxin poisoning.) Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia in 2014 with the Kremlin’s help.

According to a 2017 article by Ukraine political expert Taras Kuzio, CRC was not alone in their work. In fact, in the mid-2000s, the playing field was teeming with big names, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Yanukovych and his oligarchic allies hired American consultants, lobbyists and lawyers to a greater degree than any other group of Ukrainians. From 2002-2004, his government had an established relationship with a range of U.S. consultancies that included DB Communications, Venable, Potomac Communications Strategies, Creative Response Concepts and Jefferson Waterman International. FARA reported that the Yanukovych government paid DB Communications and Venable $123,000 per month in 2004.

After the 2004 Orange Revolution, Davis-Manafort International was recommended to Yanukovych’s long-term ally, oligarch Rinat Akhmetov. Davis-Manafort International worked in Ukraine and in the U.S. but never registered with FARA in 2005-2014. Manafort headed Trump’s election campaign but resigned after extensive media coverage of his nefarious activities. Manafort’s work for Yanukovych became public through the FARA registration of Daniel J. Edelman. 

However, whether this is related to Whelan’s tweetstorm or Kavanaugh’s confirmation at all, or what this means beyond the fact that the world is a small place and Washington, D.C. smaller still remains unclear — but time, perhaps, will tell.

The post Was CRC Public Relations Registered as a Foreign Agent? appeared first on What's True?.

The Canada-United States Relationship, According to a Florida Judge

Much of the United States’ economic policy agenda in 2018 has revolved around instituting higher tariffs, protectionism, and mitigating perceived or real trade deficits. This has extended to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA for short, which U.S. president Donald Trump has called “the worst trade deal ever.”

 

Amid NAFTA renegotiations in mid-2018, the following copy-and-paste message appeared, attributed to a Floridian judge named Robert Meadows:

Subject: Canada/USA………an apology

This is an open letter written by a Florida judge about the CANADA/USA relationships & history.

Robert Meadows (Circuit Court Judge, Florida) wrote:

“Have you ever stopped to consider how lucky we Americans are to have the neighbors we have? Look around the globe at who some folks have been stuck sharing a border with over the past half century:

North Korea / South Korea

West Germany / East Germany

Greece / Turkey

Iran / Iraq

Israel / Palestine

India / Pakistan

China / Russia

We’ve got Canada! Canada. About as inoffensive a neighbor as you could ever hope for. In spite of all our boasts of “American exceptionalism” and chants of “America first,” they just smile, do their thing and go about their business. They are on average more educated, have a higher standard of living, free health care, and almost no gun problems. They treat immigrants respectfully and already took in over 35,000 Syrians in the last two years.

They’re with us in NATO, they fought alongside us in World War I, World War II, Korea, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, Afghanistan, the Kosovo War and came to our defense after 9/11. There was that one time when Canada took a pass on one of our wars: Vietnam. Turned out to be a good call.

They’ve been steady consumers of American imports, reliable exporters of metals and petroleum products (they are the biggest importer of U.S. products from 37 states), and partnered with NASA in our space missions.

During 911 many aircraft were diverted to Newfoundland, an island province off Canada’s east coast where Americans were housed in people’s homes for two weeks and treated like royalty. In return for their hospitality, this administration slapped a 20% tariff on the products of Newfoundland’s only paper mill, thereby threatening it’s survival.

And what do Canadians expect of us in return? To be respected for who and what they are: Canadians. That’s what I call a good neighbor.

But the King of Chaos couldn’t leave well enough alone. Based on his delusions of perpetual victimhood, out of the clear blue, he’s declared economic war on Canada. On CANADA! And he did it based on Canada being a national security risk to the US! For no good reason, other than the voices in his head that told him it was a war he could win. So why not do it, then?

Trump went ahead and imposed his tariffs on aluminum and steel even though we have a trade surplus with Canada on those products! Trudeau retaliated in kind. And now this morning, the White House is preparing a new wave of tariffs in retaliation for Trudeau’s retaliation. This time he threatens a tariff on automobiles even though 70% of their components originate in the U.S.! It’s just a temporary spat, right? Except for that smile on Vladimir’s face in the Kremlin, as the NATO pact unravels a little more with each passing day.

Again, we’re talking about Canada. Our closest ally, friend and neighbor.

On behalf of an embarrassed nation, people of Canada, I apologize for this idiotic and wholly unnecessary attack. Please leave the back channels open. We the People of progressive persuasion stand with you.

The post’s basic facts are correct. President Trump did impose tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel parts, despite a US$8.4 billion trade surplus in 2017. Those were explained by the United States government as follows:

However, the international shipment of non-U.S. goods through the United States can make standard measures of bilateral trade balances potentially misleading. For example, it is common for goods to be shipped through regional trade hubs without further processing before final shipment to their ultimate destination. This can be seen in data reported by the United States’ two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The U.S. data report a $17.1 billion goods deficit with Canada in 2017, and a $71.0 billion goods deficit with Mexico. Both countries, however, reported substantially larger U.S. goods surpluses in the same relationship. In 2017, Canada reported a $97.6 billion surplus, and Mexico a $132.4 billion surplus.

The Trump administration also did threaten auto tariffs in August 2018, and the issue as of late September is far from resolved — although the U.S. International Trade Commission did unanimously overturn restrictions on Canadian newsprint.

However, the attribution on this piece as it has been appearing on social media networks is wrong. Although “Robert Meadows,” described here as “a Circuit Court judge,” is named as the author of this piece, there is no Robert Meadows working as a circuit judge anywhere in Florida.

There is a private attorney named Robert “Bob” Meadows running for that very position in the state’s 19th Judicial Circuit, which covers the eastern counties of St. Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Indian River, but it would have been very difficult to believe that any self-described nonpartisan candidate would write anything so nakedly political at the same time that he is running in a nonpartisan race — even if his office had not flatly denied it.

As yet, we have not been able to track down the post’s true author.

The post The Canada-United States Relationship, According to a Florida Judge appeared first on What's True?.

What Is the Fabian Society?

As the political fervor roiled around sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018, a number of explanations and excuses for his purported behavior appeared even before the details of the reports were widely known.

Some of these excuses bordered on the mystical; others ignored the border and just went straight into the conspiracy realm, dredging up decades-old esoteric conspiracy theories to bolster the claim that a story of sexual assault brought by a California professor, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, was actually “a Fabian Society tactic.”

The most high-profile version of that particular story came from Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon turned Trump administration’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. His contention? That Ford, an academic, was simply following an ages-old script in order to discredit her political opponent.

“If you really understand the big picture of what’s going on, then what’s going on with Kavanaugh will make perfectly good sense to you,” Carson told the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington on September 21, 2018 “There have been people in this country for a very long time, going all the way back to the Fabians, people who’ve wanted to fundamentally change this country.”

Political smears are nothing new, especially in the wild and woolly post-2016 days. What has changed, first gradually and then all at once, is that elected officials and their appointees are now apparently far more likely to use conspiracy theories as a defense.

So what is the Fabian Society, and what are its tactics? Despite the wild and esoteric rumors put forth by Carson and others, the Fabian Society in actuality is, at least relative to these rumors, rather tame. It is an openly left-leaning British think tank co-founded by children’s author and political activist Edith Nesbit with the stated purpose of advancing the principles of democratic socialism; indeed, the Fabians were an original founder of the UK’s Labour Party. In their own words:

The Fabian Society is a socialist organisation which aims to promote:

  • greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity
  • the value of collective action and public service
  • an accountable, tolerant and active democracy
  • citizenship, liberty and human rights
  • sustainable development
  • multilateral international cooperation

Jeet Heer, a staff writer for The New Republic, pointed out that conspiracy theorists often focus on wild stories of secret deals because to acknowledge the reality of sweeping social unrest would also be to acknowledge the reality of major socioeconomic disparities and how other groups profit from them.

“The weird thing here,” Heer went on, “is that the Fabians were, in context of socialism, the most moderate form of social democracy: advocates of slow, gradual change over many decades or centuries: the herbivorous left.”

But why the Fabian Society in particular, when other left-wing groups also embody its slow-change ethos? Articles on white supremacist websites, such as this blog post from 2013, shed light on the possible answer:

As Marxists the Fabian Society are Globalists/multiculturalists. They support the creation of a 1% jewish master-race and a 99% mixed race, or multi racial, dumbed down race of corporate debt-slaves run by Marxist kapos. The Fabian Society were prime movers in shutting down Grammar Schools for Working Class Children in Britain – the cover story for this dumbing down was “anti-elitism”. Most Fabian Society members, like Diane Abbot Labour MP, send their children to expensive private schools. Fabian journalists and politicians have also been behind branding anyone not supporting Globalisation/multiculturalism as racist – this has destroyed many decent British Peoples’ careers and lives.

In other words, then, it’s just another antisemitic trope, and there is absolutely no evidence that the reports of sexual assault brought against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had anything to do with this organization or any other.

The post What Is the Fabian Society? appeared first on What's True?.