Mythbusting COVID-19

ve been seeing so much bad information about Coronavirus on my timeline that I felt I needed to set some things straight. This isn’t a matter of politics. The virus doesn’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Trump supporter. The facts are the facts.

Isn’t the flu more dangerous than COVID-19?

The virus is much more dangerous than the flu. The flu has killed more people so far, but that’s because the flu has been more widespread. The final numbers are not in on the Coronavirus but COVID-19 has higher rates of both mortality and infection than the flu.

The flu has a death rate of about 0.1 percent and each person with the flu infects about 1.3 other people on average. For Coronavirus, the death rate is estimated to be about two percent, possibly slightly lower and possibly higher. A Coronavirus victim also infects about 2.2 other people on average.

If you aren’t familiar with what death rates mean, the 0.1 percent rate for the flu means that there is about one fatality for every 1,000 cases. In contrast, the estimated two percent death rate for Coronavirus means that about 20 people would die for every 1,000 cases. In other words, the Coronavirus is about 20 times more lethal than the flu.

The fact that more people have died from the flu is because the flu has been more widespread so far. That is changing fast.

Aren’t we overreacting since the flu kills more people?

The current precautions are about prevention, not reaction. The Coronavirus is more dangerous so the objective is to limit its spread.

The goal is to slow the number of cases and the demand for hospital beds. If the virus surges through the population quickly, the number of patients will be more than the number of available hospital beds, intensive care units, and ventilators. That will mean that the death rate is much higher than it had to be.

Death rates are highest where hospitals are overwhelmed by patients. If half of the US population is infected, as health experts say is possible, the death toll could reach the millions, even with a death rate of “only” two percent.

There is no treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 and humans have no natural immunity to this new virus.

To this point, testing for COVID-19 has been a problem in the US. Many people have been infected with Coronavirus and don’t know it.

Doesn’t a two percent death rate mean a 98 percent chance of living?

Yes, but it might also mean spending a long time in an ICU and permanent lung damage.

Even if you survive COVID-19 you might infect other people who are higher-risk. You might be responsible for infecting elderly friends or relatives.

What are the symptoms of Coronavirus?

The main symptoms are a fever and a cough, although various other symptoms have been reported as well. If you have a fever and have trouble breathing, you should seek medical help.

The symptoms of Coronavirus are similar to the flu. An increase in influenza-like-illnesses, in which patients have symptoms of the flu but test negative for it may mask many cases of Coronavirus.

Do masks prevent the spread of the virus?

The CDC says that masks do not protect unsick people from contracting the virus. Masks should be used by sick people to keep from spreading the virus in aerosol droplets when they cough or sneeze.

How long has Coronavirus been in the US?

Coronavirus is new to the US. The first known case was in China in mid-November 2019. The first known case in the US dates back to January 19, 2020, in Washington State. The man had been on a trip to Wuhan, China and had apparently contracted the virus there.

President Trump ordered a ban on travel from China on January 31, but the virus could have been carried into the US by other passengers prior to the ban taking effect. The ban did not prohibit Americans from entering the country. Five airports had screenings were set up for Coronavirus at the time, but the focus was on visitors from China.

Does the Coronavirus only affect the elderly?

Eighty percent of Coronavirus deaths are people older than 60 according to the CDC. This group also accounts for 45 percent of hospitalizations.

The flip side is that more than half of cases requiring hospitalization are people younger than 60. Some of these cases are so serious that they require treatment in intensive care.

The very young can be infected with the virus but usually on have mild or moderate cases. They can still infect other high-risk people, though.

Even though the virus is most dangerous to seniors with pre-existing health problems, the virus is more dangerous than the flu for most age groups.

Coronavirus has been around for a long time. Why are we panicking about it now?

There is more than one type of Coronavirus. COVID-19 is a new strain that was discovered in 2019. That’s what the “19” means.

Are there multiple strains of Coronavirus?

There are two different types of COVID-19, but they are almost identical. WHO considers the virus to be a single strain. The differences could simply be the mutations caused in the virus as it adapted to its new host, humans.

Can you catch Coronavirus more than once?

Scientists believe that once a person survives the virus, they become immune to it. That could change if the virus mutates.

Should you avoid ibuprofen if you suspect you have COVID-19?

The latest evidence says that there is little evidence of risk with ibuprofen but experts say to be cautious.

Is Coronavirus a bioweapon?

The evidence points to a natural origin for Coronavirus. Analysis of virus genomes showed no evidence that the virus was the product of a laboratory.

The theory that China released a bioweapon on themselves doesn’t really make sense anyway. The Chinese economy is being heavily damaged by the virus, something that they would not do on purpose. If the release was accidental, the Chinese government would have responded much more quickly to contain the outbreak than they did.

Further, Coronavirus has a lower mortality rate than a virus used as a weapon would likely have. Why weaponize Coronavirus with a two percent mortality rate when you could use Ebola, which has a 90 percent death rate?

Isn’t this a hoax to hurt Trump?

Would entire nations lock down their populations and destroy their economies to try to keep Trump from being re-elected? If it is a hoax, then Trump is in on it at this point. Coronavirus is also not a plot to delay the election and keep Trump in power, to implement martial law, to poison Americans with a mandatory vaccine, or to implant microchips in unsuspecting people.

Remember that the most basic advice to avoid contracting or spreading the Coronavirus is simple:

• Wash your hands carefully
• Stay six feet away from other people
• Cover your mouth with a tissue if you cough or sneeze and then throw the tissue in the trash
• Wash your hands some more

Don’t panic and don’t fall for the fake news and conspiracy theories about COVID-19. As a nation, we will get through this if we keep our heads, wash our hands, and trust God to see us through.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Myth Busted: Georgia Heartbeat Bill Would Not Imprison Women For Miscarriages

Rumors have been going around that Georgia’s new fetal heartbeat law contains a number of onerous provisions. Opponents of the law claim that it would allow authorities to lock up women who have miscarriages or cross state lines to get abortions. If that sounds stupid enough to raise red flags with you, you aren’t alone. Rather than taking the internet’s word for it, I decided to go straight to the source to find the truth.

The text of HB 481, the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” is readily available and the full bill runs less than 10 pages. With much of the text struck through from previous versions, it’s a quick read so I encourage others to read the bill as well. Quotations in this article are taken from the Georgia General Assembly website’s current version of the bill as of May 11, 2019. Here’s what the law actually says.

 The core provision of the law is the statement, “ Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based [sic] determinations.” This means that unborn children with a detectable heartbeat are considered to be people for legal purposes. For example, the law specifically states that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat… shall qualify as a dependent minor” for purposes of filing a Georgia income tax return.

The law also defines what an abortion is and is not. The new law defines abortion as the “act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.”

Further, the law provides two exceptions that it says will not be considered to be an abortion. These are “removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion” and “removing an ectopic pregnancy.”

The law defines “spontaneous abortion” as “the naturally occurring death of an unborn child, including a miscarriage or stillbirth.” This definition puts lie to the claim that women could be prosecuted for a miscarriage.

The law is not a total abortion ban as it does provide limited exceptions that allow an abortion to take place after a heartbeat has been detected. These include cases of “rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense” and the “probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or less” or when a “physician determines, in reasonable medical judgment, that the pregnancy is medically futile.”

The law defines “medically futile” to mean “in reasonable medical judgment, an unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth.” Note that abortions performed when the pregnancy is deemed to be medically futile are not subject to the 20-week limitation.

The law further stipulates that “if the child is capable of sustained life, medical aid then available shall be rendered” and requires that abortions “performed after the first trimester” take place “in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the Department of Community Health” and be performed by a licensed physician. If abortions are performed in violation of these requirements, the woman is entitled to collect civil damages, but this excludes the accidental results of treatment or if a “woman sought an abortion because she reasonably believed that an abortion was the only way to prevent a medical emergency.”

“Medical emergency” is defined as “a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This exception does specifically exclude mental and emotional conditions as well as the threat that the “that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

Penalties under the law are focused on abortionists, not mothers. The bill states, “In addition to any criminal or civil penalties provided by law, failure by any physician to conform to any requirement of this Code section constitutes unprofessional conduct for purposes of… to medical licensing sanctions."

The law does amend the Georgia code to stipulate, “For the homicide of an unborn child, the right to recover for the full value of the life of such child shall begin at the point at which a detectable human heartbeat.” This does open the question of whether an abortion can be considered homicide when the law goes into effect next year. The law does not specifically address this question, but the implication considering a child to be a person is that it would.

While the new law does not specify penalties for the “homicide of an unborn child,” previous Georgia law already declared “feticide” and “voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child” to be a felony with a penalty of between one and 20 years. As previously written, the law excluded abortions, people providing medical treatment, and “any woman with respect to her unborn child” from prosecution. The State of Georgia would obviously have no jurisdiction in abortionist that take place in other states.

The outlandish claims being propagated by the pro-abortion crowd are easily debunked by reading the law’s text. The law contains reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, stillbirths, and medical emergencies. The law specifically protects women in the case of miscarriage and when their life is deemed to be in danger. Finally, the law does not create a criminal penalty for either abortionists or women who seek abortions. Instead, the focus is on preventing physicians from performing elective abortions under the threat of losing their medical licenses and facing civil penalties.

This myth is busted.

Originally published on the Resurgent

The myth of 2012’s missing Republicans

Since the 2012 election, many have believed that Mitt Romney lost the election because many Republicans, turned off by Romney’s status as a “Republican in name only,” stayed home and didn’t vote. As the theory goes, the Republicans could have won the election if only they had nominated a candidate who was more conservative and who would have motivated the Republican base to turn out. Who are these conservative Republicans who did not vote in 2012? The answer to the missing Republicans of 2012 can be found in exit polls and vote tallies.

The first thing to note is that Mitt Romney got more votes than John McCain did in 2008. The Federal Election Commission’s official tallies for 2008 show that McCain received 59,948,323 votes. The official 2012 results from the FEC show that Mitt Romney received 60,933,500 votes. Romney received almost a million votes more than McCain.

President Obama received 69,498,516 votes in 2008 and 65,915,796 votes in 2012. Obama’s vote total in 2012 was 3.5 million votes less than he had received in 2008, but this was still enough to secure a victory against Romney. Obama’s percentage of the vote declined from 52.93 percent in 2008 to 51.06 percent in 2012. On the surface it would appear that if Republicans stayed home for anyone it was John McCain.

Exit polls from CNN seem to confirm the notion that a boycott by conservatives was not Mitt Romney’s problem. The 2008 exit polls show that the electorate that year was comprised of 39 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republicans and 29 percent independents. CNN’s 2012 exit polls showed almost exactly the same the breakdown: 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 38 percent Democrat, one point less than 2008.

In both years, the candidates won approximately 90 percent of the votes of their own party members. Obama won 89 percent Democrats in 2008 and 92 percent in 2012. McCain and Romney won 90 and 93 percent of Republicans respectively.

The big difference came from independent voters. Obama won 52 percent of independents in 2008, but in 2012 he only received 45 percent of the independent vote. The Republican share went from 44 percent in 2008 to 50 percent in 2012.

Looking at individual battleground states shows much the same. In Ohio, the 2008 electorate was 39 percent Democrat and 31 percent each for Republicans and independents. In 2012, the breakdown was exactly the same. The big difference was that independents swung from 52 percent for Obama in 2008 to 53 percent for Romney.

In Virginia, the electoral breakdown was 39 percent Democrat and 33 percent Republican in 2008. In 2012, the Democrats had the same percentage while Republicans declined to 32 percent. Independents, a demographic that increased by two percentage points, shifted from 49 percent for Obama (48 percent McCain and three percent other) to 54 percent Romney.

In Florida, both parties declined from 2008 to 2012, the Democrats from 37 to 35 percent and the Republicans from 34 to 33 percent. Independents increased from 29 to 33 percent and Obama won the demographic both years. In 2008, he won 52 percent of independents and 50 percent in 2012.

North Carolina, a state that swung from blue to red is a bit different. In 2008, the electorate was 42 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican and 27 percent independent. In 2012, Democrats lost three points while Republicans gained two for a total five point swing in party identification. McCain and Romney both won independents, a group that grew by two percentage points, by 60 and 57 percent respectively.

In almost every case, the Republican candidate won more than 90 percent of the Republican vote. The exception was John McCain who only received 87 percent of the Republican vote in Florida in 2008. In each of these states, Mitt Romney received a greater percentage of the Republican vote than McCain.

The exit poll figures closely mirror Gallup party identification poll results. In early November 2008, Gallup found 26 percent Republicans and 39 percent Democrats with 35 percent identifying as independents. When “leaners” were taken into account, Democrats led Republicans by a 51-40 percent margin.

Four years later, in November 2012, the Democrats still held the advantage. Thirty-five percent identified as Democrats and 30 percent as Republicans. Thirty-three percent considered themselves independent. Counting “leaners,” Democrats led 50-42.

The poll results exploding the myth that Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney. Republicans voted for Romney in even greater numbers than they voted for John McCain.

The fundamental problem for Republicans is that they did not grow the party between 2008 and 2012. North Carolina, the only state to shift from blue to red, was the only state examined in which Republicans increased as a percentage of the electorate. The five point shift was enough for Romney to claim the state.

A secondary and related problem is that the percentage of independents increased in many states. While Mitt Romney took a greater share of the independent vote than McCain, it was not enough to overcome the advantage of the larger Democratic base.

These numbers indicate that a Republican strategy that focuses on increasing the turnout of Republican voters is not likely to succeed in future elections. Since Republicans comprise a smaller percentage of voters than Democrats, the key to a Republican victory is to win independents by a large margin. In future elections this will be even more critical since the percentage of independents has grown dramatically since 2012. Gallup reports that almost half of all voters consider themselves independent.

The 2012 election proved that attacking Obamacare was not enough to secure a Republican victory. A strategy that may help sway independents and grow the Republican base is to present a more positive vision of the Republican agenda rather than simply criticizing the records of Democrats and focusing on the repeal of Obamacare. As economist Arthur Brooks argues, Republicans should spend less time fighting against abstract things and more time fighting for the people that they want to vote for them.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Beware of tax protest conspiracies

As we approach April 15, the deadline for filing federal income tax returns for most individual taxpayers, many people question whether Americans are really required to pay an income tax. Scores of Youtube videos featuring people such as former IRS agent Joseph Bannister claim that the federal income tax is illegal and that Americans cannot be forced to pay taxes to the IRS. In celebration of the Ides of April, let us once again don our tin foil hats and delve into the world of income tax protesters.

One claim made by tax protesters is that there is no law on the books that permits a federal income tax. It is true that the original income tax signed into law by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895. This problem was fixed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Some tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Professor Jonathan Siegel of the George Washington University Law School explains that the 16^th Amendment had the same ratification process as other amendments and really is part of the Constitution.

Another claim is that even though the Constitution permits an income tax, no federal law ever enacted one. Some tax protesters claim that even after years of searching that they have found no law establishing an income tax. In truth, they need look no further than Title 26 of the U.S. Code, commonly known as the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle A, chapter one, subchapter A, part one legally establishes an income tax on individuals. This part also defines that wages are included in taxable income, debunking another claim by some tax protesters.

The “861 argument” against paying income tax is based on a section of chapter one of the tax code. Section 861 relates to resident and nonresident aliens working in the United States as well as foreign corporations. Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens unless they have income that has already been taxed according to Professor Siegel. If a U.S. citizen has paid taxes to a foreign government, the federal tax code allows them to use these payments as a credit on their federal income tax. Otherwise Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens.

Tax protesters also cite the names of many people who have allegedly “beat the IRS” in court. What they don’t say is that while these people may sometimes avoid jail time, they are not so fortunate when it comes to avoiding civil penalties and being forced to pay back taxes and penalties. Often tax protesters are sent to jail as well.

Vernice Kuglin, a former FedEx pilot who appears in some online videos as someone who beat the IRS in court, actually was acquitted in 2003 of falsifying W-4 forms and failing to pay taxes. Although she did not go to jail, she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties and had her wages garnished by the IRS according to court documents cited on Tax Protester Dossiers. The Memphis Daily News reported in 2007 that the IRS had filed an additional tax lien against her house for $188,025.

Joseph Banister, the IRS agent who was mentioned in the first paragraph, also escaped jail although he was indicted for conspiracy to avoid taxes. According to Tax Protester Dossiers, Banister was acquitted of the criminal charge, but was disbarred from IRS practice. The California Board of Accountancy revoked his CPA license in 2007. The CBA website cites the cause for discipline as “providing erroneous advice to taxpayers” and “improperly advising them that tax returns were not required….”

Banister’s client in the case that led to his disbarment was Walter “Al” Thompson. Thompson refused to withhold taxes from their wages and file tax documents as required by law. According to etax.com, Thompson was convicted, fined $7,500, and sentenced to 72 months in prison on a variety of charges including filing a false return and failing to pay income and Social Security taxes for his employees.

Other tax protesters were also not as lucky as Banister and Kuglin. Sherry Peel Jackson, a Stone Mountain, Ga. resident and former IRS agent, was found guilty on four counts of failing to file tax returns. Jackson appears in some of the internet films espousing tax protest theories. She was sentenced to four years in prison. She surrendered her CPA license to Georgia authorities after her conviction.

Many other tax protesters have gone to jail when they followed their beliefs and failed to file tax returns. Other prominent tax resisters who have gone to jail include Peter Hendrickson, author of “Cracking the Code,” a book of tips on how to avoid paying taxes, who received a 33 month jail term and a $25,000 fine. Larken Rose, a proponent of the 861 argument, received a 15 month prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Irwin Schiff has gone to jail three times for criminal violations of tax laws. He is currently serving a 13 year sentence on tax charges and criminal contempt.

The lesson taxpayers should learn is that if there were an easy way out of paying taxes, nobody would pay them, taxes would not be a major political issue and the Republicans would not put such emphasis on tax cuts. Most obviously, if paying income taxes was not mandatory, people who do not pay taxes would not go to jail. It is not illegal to question the legality of the income tax. It is illegal to refuse to pay taxes or file a return.

Many conspiracy theories are ultimately harmless. Staying inside because of a fear of chemtrails may hamper one’s life, but it won’t ruin it. Believing that that JFK was the victim of a vast conspiracy, that secret forces were behind the September 11 attacks, or that Obamacare requires Americans to receive implants or establishes a secret police force probably won’t cause one to lose their job or family. While it is not against the law to espouse conspiracy theories about the income tax, acting on those theories can cost conspiracy believers years in jails and thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/tax-protester-conspiracy-theories-can-lead-to-jail-fines

Myths, lies, and conspiracies about the Sandy Hook massacre

Often after a violent event that leads to a dramatic shift in public opinion or government policy, conspiracy theories abound. The Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, and the September 11 attacks all spawned numerous conspiracy theories. Now the Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Ct. is becoming fodder for the purveyors of conspiracies.

Second shooters and the man in camouflage

One of the first conspiracies about Sandy Hook is that there was a second shooter. News coverage on the day of the murders showed a man in camouflage who had been arrested in the woods near the school. Bystanders reported that the man said, “I didn’t do it,” but no information on the man’s identity was forthcoming.

The mystery was quietly solved two weeks after the murders. On Dec. 27, the Newtown Bee reported, almost as an afterthought, that “a man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.” The article does not explain what the officer was doing in the woods, but his identity was probably withheld because of his status as a SWAT officer. It is plausible to think that he might have been nearby and responded to the shootings. The Bee cites a “reliable law enforcement source.”

The SWAT officer was not the only person detained by police near Sandy Hook that day. Chris Manfredonia ran around the school trying to find his six-year-old daughter when he was handcuffed by police according to a Dec. 14 Los Angeles Times report. Manfredonia was released and found his daughter alive. Another unidentified man was detained according to Snopes, but was released when it became clear that he was not involved in the murders.

Chris Rodia was also accused of being the second shooter by some conspiracy theorists. In reality, the Connecticut Post reports that Rodia was being stopped for a traffic violation in Greenwich, Ct. at the time of the murders. Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance told the Post that Adam Lanza was the only gunman and that the car belonged to his relative (Nancy Lanza, his mother, according to other reports), not to Rodia, whom Vance had never heard of. Apparently, the officer who stopped Rodia was using the same police frequency as units responding to Sandy Hook, causing bloggers monitoring scanners to become confused.

The Post tracked the Rodia conspiracy to several websites including one called “USA Hitman.” The administrator of the site admitted that “"I have a full-time job and don't have time to research the stories.”

Did Lanza use an assault rifle?
The weapon used by Lanza has also been the source of confusion. Paul Vance of the State Police confirmed to CNN that Lanza carried three guns in the attack. The primary weapon was a Bushmaster AR-15, but he also carried Glock 10 mm and Sig Sauer 9 mm pistols. The Newtown Bee’s law enforcement source confirms this information.

Early reports that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of Lanza’s (not Rodia’s) car were not correct. The weapon recovered from the trunk was actually a shotgun. CNN noted that authorities had not released details of the shotgun. A Youtube video shows police removing the gun, which does not appear to be an AR-15, from the trunk of the car.

There are reports that the gun in the trunk was a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun, but these could not be verified. The Saiga 12 gauge is a combat shotgun that can accept a large capacity magazine and could easily be mistaken for an “assault rifle.”

Ryan Lanza’s ID

Ryan Lanza’s role in the massacre has also been the source of confusion. Initial reports were that Ryan, Adam Lanza’s brother, was the killer. In reality, Ryan Lanza was at work in New York City when he heard about the shooting according to the Daily Mail. Lanza was picked up by police for questioning and was later released.

The confusion stems from the fact that Adam Lanza was reported to have carried Ryan’s identification. Precisely what sort of identification cannot be determined from the information that has been released. It is possible that the identification was old and out-of-date since the Lanza brothers did not live together.

Peter Lanza and LIBOR

There were also reports that Lanza’s father was scheduled to testify before Congress in the LIBOR scandal. The conspiracy theory claims that the father of James Holmes, the “Dark Knight” killer from Aurora, Co., was also scheduled to testify on LIBOR. The problem was that no such hearing was scheduled to take place according to Talking Points Memo. Holmes worked for FICO and Lanza worked for GE. Neither is connected to LIBOR scandal, which is not even an American scandal.

Victoria Soto

Another myth involves Victoria Soto, one of the teachers murdered by Lanza. Early reports indicated that Soto had hidden her students in a classroom closet and then told Lanza that they were not in the classroom. In reality, one of Soto’s students said that Soto lined her students up and put herself between them and Lanza. The student, Aidan Licata, told CNN that he had been taught to run if they saw someone with a gun. Aidan and several of the other students ran past Lanza and escaped. Aidan was picked up by a woman who took him to a police station, but some of the students from Miss Soto’s class ended up in Gene Rosen’s driveway.

The closet tactic was used by another first grade teacher, Kaitlin Roig, according to ABC News. Roig hid her class in a bathroom and wheeled a storage unit in front of the door. She piled some of her six- and seven-year-olds on top of the toilet to fit everyone inside while telling those “who believed in the power of the prayer, we need to pray and those who don't believe in prayer" to remain positive. When the police came, Roig refused to open the door, thinking that it might the murderer trying to trick her. She told them that if they were really the police they could find a key to open the door themselves. Roig and her students all survived.

Gene Rosen

Gene Rosen, who opened his home to several Sandy Hook survivors, has also been the target of the conspiracy buffs. Rosen’s home is slightly more than a tenth of mile from Sandy Hook, an easy walk for first graders. (Examiner is not publishing Rosen’s address to protect him from further harassment.) In spite of claims to the contrary, Connecticut’s News Times reported that Rosen did invite the bus driver who was with the six children into his home. The children eventually told Rosen what had happened. One of them even said that the killer had “a little gun and a big gun,” supporting the claim that Lanza carried the Bushmaster into the school. The original article does not specify whether the bus driver was male or female.

Much has been made of Rosen’s delay in contacting the police, but the News Times article indicates that he was initially somewhat skeptical about the children’s story. He did not realize that it was true until he watched the news that night.

It is not clear how much the bus driver knew about what had happened at the school. The driver may have even been in shock, since Rosen focuses mainly on the stories that the children told after they came inside. A Fox News report indicates that Rosen and the bus driver called the driver’s supervisor, who helped them to contact the children’s parents. It is reasonable to assume that the police would have been notified, either by Rosen or the supervisor, even though this is not specifically mentioned in the story. The bus driver’s name is apparently not mentioned in any news story. With the negative attention that Rosen has received, who can blame the driver for remaining anonymous?

According to the article, parents of four of the children were contacted and picked up their children at Rosen’s house and then the group went to the firehouse next door where other parents were gathering. Presumably, the other two children were either reunited with their parents or turned over to authorities there.

According to Snopes, Rosen was never a member of the Screen Actors Guild as some have claimed. This was a case of mistaken identity with another Eugene Rosen. The Eugene Rosen who lives near Sandy Hook has been a lifelong Connecticut resident. This is easily confirmed through online address searches and background checks.

Emilie Parker

Six-year-old Emilie Parker has also been the target of conspiracies thanks to a photo of President Obama surrounded by children. A girl in the picture bears a striking resemblance to Emilie and even wears the same dress that Emilie wore in a family portrait. The girl with the president is Emilie’s sister, Madeline, who is now four-years-old.

A collection of pictures posted on Metabunk helps clear up the confusion. The family portrait was taken in 2010 when Emilie was four and Madeline was two. Two years later, Madeline is at the same age that Emilie was in the family picture. She obviously wore a hand-me-down dress in the picture with the president.

Actors and smiling parents

Other conspiracies revolving around the massacre are more subjective. Conspiracy buffs claim that the parents interviewed on television are too happy to be grieving parents and that they are actually crisis actors employed by the government. There are many reasons that a parent might laugh after the death of child. There might be anxiety and nervousness about going on television, they might remember a happy moment with their baby, or they might even be in shock and not yet fully comprehending the loss.

An online conspiracy video states that Robbie Parker, Emilie’s father, is listed in an internet search as being 57-years-old. This is another obvious case of mistaken identity. An internet search performed by Examiner found no fewer than 12 Robert Parkers in Connecticut, including two in Sandy Hook. What the video fails to note is that the Robbie Parker interviewed on the news is the same man in the 2010 family portrait with Emilie and Madeline.

An Anderson Cooper podcast shows Veronique Pozner, another parent who is obviously distraught and says that she is still numb from the loss of her son. Lynn McDonnell, also cited on the conspiracy video with her words dubbed out, was on Anderson Cooper as well. A transcript of the interview shows that she was talking about her daughter’s sweet spirit, how she loved school, and how she would blow kisses as she got on the bus. These are memories that could easily make a grieving parent smile for a moment.

It is not reasonable to judge a parent to be an imposter based solely on their facial expression. People grieve in different ways. There likely were parents who fit the stereotype of grief in which they constantly cry and are totally inconsolable. It is reasonable to assume that these parents declined to do television interviews.

The claim that the parents are actors is easily debunked. Crisis Actors is a private business that provides actors for mock disaster drills. This is not a secret government organization. These are private citizens who work with government agencies to help them train for disasters, terrorist attacks and mass killings. The Crisis Actors website states, “We do not engage our actors in any real-world crisis events, and none of our performances may be presented at any time as a real-world event.”

Snopes believes that it has traced the origin of the actor conspiracy to Wellaware, another conspiracy site. This site apparently promotes the idea that many famous people have been replaced by actors. Among their theories are that Jerry Sandusky was replaced by Kevin Costner, that George Herbert Walker Bush was really Joseph Kennedy, Jr., that Queen Elizabeth is really Betty White, and that Kermit Roosevelt, son of President Theodore Roosevelt, portrayed both Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney.

The idea that actors are portraying the parents defies logic. If the parents on television are actors, then where are the real parents? If actors were being used, wouldn’t they be trained to portray stereotypical grief instead of laughing? If parents are not really grieving, where are the children? If the children and teachers were really killed in a “false flag” operation then why bother to hire actors? Wouldn’t the real parents be more convincing since they were really grief-stricken?

Ambulances, Lanza’s accuracy and controlling the crime scene

The conspiracy video also refers to news camera pictures showing the lack of activity around the school in the wake of the shooting. The answer here is simple: Most of the news crews arrived long after the action was over. The famous photo of a teacher leading a line of children was taken by the Newtown Bee, the local paper and apparently the first and only reporters on the scene for a time. The video says that there are “no ambulances” while simultaneously showing a video in which ambulances are clearly present. By the time video news crews reached the scene reached the scene, the children had already been removed from the school, to the fire station if they were uninjured or in ambulances if they were. NBC News reports that ambulances were even called in from neighboring towns, but most were unused. The majority of the victims were dead, not injured.

Adam Lanza’s accuracy has also been questioned due to reports that all victims had multiple wounds. The Hartford Courant reports that Lanza was a frequent player of first-person shooter video games and, according to MSNBC, he was familiar with guns and marksmanship. Children in the classrooms with one door had little room to escape. Many of the bullet wounds were probably inflicted after the victim was already dead or injured and unable to run.

Conspiracy buffs have keyed in on a comment about “controlling” the scene by Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Wayne Carver. A full transcript of Carver’s comments indicate that he was talking about controlling access to the crime scene to spare the families more emotional distress.

Carver’s full comment was, “We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them of their facial features. It’s easier on the families when you do that. There is a time and a place for up close and personal in the grieving process. But to accomplish this, we felt it would be best to do it this way, and you can sort of – you can control the situation, depending on the photographer and I have very good photographers.” This explains why the parents were kept from the crime scene and not allowed to see the bodies as well as why any closed circuit camera images have not been released.

Bridgeport FEMA conference

Conspiracy sites have also pointed out that FEMA was holding a conference in Bridgeport, Ct. on the day of the massacre. The topic of this sinister conference? “Planning for the needs of Children in Disasters.”

The location of the conference was not on the same road as Sandy Hook as some sites claim, although Highway 25 does connect both towns. According to Yahoo Maps, the two locations were 20 miles and about half an hour apart. It should be remembered that Connecticut is a small state with an average length of 90 miles and width of 55 miles. This means that the conference in Bridgeport was halfway across the state from Sandy Hook.

None of this is in the least incriminating or suggestive of FEMA involvement in the shooting. In fact, the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection calendar reveals that the same course was offered a total of four times in December. On the days of three of the four classes, no mass murders occurred.

Dates on internet postings

One of the last conspiracy items is the claim that news stories and Facebook pages about the murders were posted to the internet before the shootings actually occurred. This is based on dates posted on Google search results.

To see the fallacy in this theory, go to Google.com and type in a search term, something along the lines of “Sandy Hook shooting.” Click “search tools” in the menu below the search field. Click the arrow beside “any time” to open up a time range menu and then select “custom range.” Select a date range before the Sandy Hook shooting to search, for example, you can search the dates between January 1 and December 1, 2012. The results show news stories about the Sandy Hook massacre from as early as Jan. 14, 2012, far beyond the day or so early claimed by the conspiracy buffs. When dates are expanded, search results dating back to 2007 and 2008 can be found. This should be too early for even the most ardent conspiracy believers to justify as secret operation.

A similar search on Bing does not yield similar results. Bing does not offer custom date range searches, but after scrolling through many pages of search results, nothing prior to Dec. 14, 2012, the day of the shooting was found. The same is true of other search engines including Ask and Yahoo. Obviously, there is a flaw in Google’s methodology.

Without a doubt, President Obama and the Democrats are using the tragic murders at Sandy Hook for their own political ends. There is no evidence that they actually carried out the shootings or orchestrated a hoax of any sort. They didn’t need to. Mass murders happen on occasion and this one, happening just after the election, came at an opportune time.

A hoax would have been much smoother. They would have hired actors who knew how to cry. They might have set up websites in advance, but they would not have activated them, much less more than one, before the shooting. Eyewitness testimony would have matched. In reality, conflicting testimony is not a sign of a hoax because people perceive things in different ways and remember things differently. Stories that match up perfectly are more likely to indicate that the testimony was planned in advance.

For Sandy Hook to be a hoax perpetrated by the government, the conspirators would have to be exceedingly incompetent. They would have had to execute the killings and plant Adam Lanza as a patsy, but forget to plant the AR-15 on his body. They would also have to inexplicably put one of the “dead” girls in a photo opportunity with the president and launch websites several days early. Actors portraying the parents would have to all be so incompetent as to forget their roles on camera.

In any unfolding news story, there is a lot of erroneous information at the beginning. The “fog of war,” conflicting information coming in from different sources and all presented as fact, means that some of the early information is not true. The news media are not intentionally lying; they are just reporting the story as they know it at the time. When this information is corrected later, it isn’t a hoax or a cover up; they are just setting the record straight.

As with any conspiracy theory, the best solution is to apply Hanlon’s razor to conspiracy claims about Adam Lanza and the mass murder at Sandy Hook. “Never accept for malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/myths-lies-and-conspiracies-about-the-sandy-hook-massacre?cid=db_articles

Occupy Wall Street’s “One Percent” myth

One of the pervasive myths of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that one percent of the population controls 99 percent of wealth. Conversely, the occupiers, who claim to be among the other 99 percent, are left with only one percent of the nation’s wealth. The truth is available in online data from the U.S. government.

According the IRS, there were 2,196 people with a net worth of more than $1.5 million each in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available. Their combined net worth was $9.7 trillion. According to the 2004 edition of the CIA World Fact Book, the GDP of the United States in 2004 was $10.9 trillion. This works out to only about 88% of the GDP for the top seven percent of the population (using a census estimate of 308,745,538 Americans in 2004). This is a far cry from one percent controlling nine percent of the total American wealth. This is even assuming that all of the wealth of the top seven percent is in the United States when in reality much of it is probably international.

The census data also lists individuals with more than $1.5 million in net worth by state. The 2004 data reveals that Georgia was home to 56 of these high net worth individuals. Ironically, most of the states with the largest numbers of high net worth residents are blue states. Of the states that were home to more than 100 high net worth residents, three states, California, New York, and Illinois are reliably Democratic. One state, Florida, is a swing state, and one, Texas, is an established red state.

The statistic is harder to disprove when it is applied to the world at large because many countries simply do not generate reliable statistics. However, a World Bank poverty report from 2008 shows that poverty rates around the world have been falling since 1980. If the world's poor are getting richer, it would seem that they would also be controlling a larger share of the wealth.  The report also shows that most of the world’s poor live in underdeveloped and authoritarian regions of the world, particularly Africa, central and southeast Asia, and the former Soviet bloc countries of Europe.

Similarly, in the United States the poverty rate has remained consistently between 12 and 15 percent for the past half century according to census data. In most cases, Americans do not stay in poverty. As the St. Louis Fed pointed out in a 2010 article, there is ample movement between income classes in the United States. Americans might be in poverty after graduating from college or while changing jobs or careers, then quickly move to an upper income bracket. Ironically, the U.S. poverty rate was at the highest level in 20 years as the Great Recession, slow economic growth, and high unemployment took their tolls.

The protesters at Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Atlanta, and the other encampments around the country also ignore an important fact: That the top one percent of income earners pays more than their share of taxes. According to IRS data from 2008, the most recent year available, the top one percent of income earners pays 38 percent of all income taxes. The top ten percent of earners pays 70 percent of all taxes. The bottom 50 percent of earners pay only three percent of taxes. By this measure, the U.S. tax system is one of the most progressive in the world.

If the occupiers believe that millionaires are the root of all that is wrong with America, then they should be encouraged by statistics reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 17, 2011. The number of millionaire tax filers declined by 39 percent from 2007 to 2009. The number of filers with more than $10 million declined by 55 percent. The tax contributions of these demographics declined accordingly as well as the recession hit the wealthy. There is some speculation that the number of millionaires may be on the rise as stock markets recover, however.

In the end, even if the one percent statistic is false or unverifiable, it is still a potent propaganda tool. It is easy to understand, easy to communicate, and ubiquitous. As one of the Occupy Atlanta activists put it, regardless of whether the statistic is verifiable or not, he believes it because it should be “obvious” from “what you see.”

As published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-occupy-movement-s-one-percent-myth

Santa Claus: Fact or fiction?

Santa Claus visits the author's home.

As Christmas approaches, I once again don my tinfoil hat to delve into the world of conspiracy theories.  In this edition, I examine what is reputed to be one of the world’s oldest and largest conspiracies.  If true, this conspiracy would dwarf the Kennedy assassination, the Roswell incident, and the cover-ups of the September 11 attacks.  This conspiracy would involve millions of people around the world over hundreds of years and reach all the way to the US military’s North American Air Defense Command (NORAD).  It permeates the film and publishing industries as well as retail stores throughout the Western world.  I speak, of course, of the Great Santa Claus Conspiracy.

For years, it has been alleged that Santa Claus is a myth.  Conspiracists point to the outlandish claims regarding the Red-Suited Elf:  That he purportedly operates an aerial sleigh pulled by eight flying reindeer (nine if Rudolph is included), that this sleigh is of sufficient cargo capacity to carry enough toys to satisfy the world’s population of children and, as Dave Barry might put it, “enough candy to meet the nation’s zit needs well into the next century.” 

The conspiracist’s claims have shown up in numerous popular culture references over past decades.  A Norman Rockwell painting called “The Discovery” shows a shocked boy finding a Santa suit in his parent’s dresser.  A popular Christmas song, “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus,” also alleges that Santa is really the child’s father in disguise.  Numerous television shows, movies, and comic strips make similar accusations.

One of the most significant objections is why elves toiling in the toy shops of the North Pole produce toys that are so similar to toys produced by conventional corporations that they can be readily exchanged at local retailers.  Don’t Santa’s elves respect copyrights and patents?  (Granted, this doesn’t seem to stop the Chinese either.)  Similarly, the financial burden of giving free toys to the children of the world would be staggering.  Charity is not cheap.

The conspiracists, however, ignore inconvenient facts that do not support their claims.  For example, the reality is that Santa Claus is a historical figure.  Originally known as St. Nicholas, Santa was a bishop of the Christian church in Myra, Turkey in the fourth century AD.  St. Nicholas was persecuted and imprisoned for his faith by the Roman Emperor Diocletian.  St. Nicholas took Jesus’ instruction to the rich, young ruler to “sell all your possessions and give to the poor.”  He was known for his generosity and for being a protector of children.

Many stories and legends grew up around Nicholas.  In one, a poor man could not afford the dowries that were customarily required to entice men to marry his three daughters.  Since they could not find husbands, they were destined to be sold into slavery.  On three separate occasions, Nicholas supposedly tossed bags of gold into the window of their house to provide a dowry for the girls.  The bags reportedly landed in stockings or shoes by the fire, giving rise to the custom of children hanging up stockings to await Nicholas’ gifts.

1863 depiction of Santa Claus by Thomas Nast

St. Nicholas died on December 6, AD 343 and therefore cannot be the modern Santa.  Instead the example that St. Nicholas set for Christian charity and loving compassion for children inspired many other copycat Santas throughout the centuries.  The name “Santa Claus” may be a corruption of the Dutch (“Sinter Klaas”) and German (“Sankt Nicklaus”) names for St. Nicholas that appeared in New York City after the American Revolution.  The combination of Old World terms is appropriately American.

When Santa’s origins are taken account, the objections of the conspiricists can be explained.  For example, since Christmas is celebrated only by Christians, Santa is not required to visit all the children in the world.  Christians make up only about one third of the world’s population, which shortens Santa’s itinerary markedly.  Not even all Christian children celebrate Christmas with Santa.  A growing number of Christian parents do not teach their children about Santa.  In these cases, the parents clearly give the Christmas gifts.  Santa doesn’t go where he isn’t invited and his workload is further reduced.

Similarly, the fewer gifts required would also ease Santa’s financial burden.  Further, growing up in northeast Georgia, the author’s parents explained that although Santa provided and delivered the toys to good boys and girls, he did require a contribution from the parents.  Subsequent fact-checking with my classmates confirmed that the story was consistent.  My friend’s had heard the same thing.  This explains the reason that Santa’s gifts reflect socioeconomic level.  If the parents must help Santa defray the cost of gifts, not all parents can afford dirt bikes, ponies, solid-gold iPods, etc. 

A reasonable for explanation for the apparent copyright infringement by North Pole toy workers is that Santa likely works out licensing agreements with the major toy companies.  Licensing is a common practice in many industries in which the product’s developer gives other companies the legal right to produce their own version.  In Santa’s case, the licensed products are indistinguishable from toys made in conventional factories. 

With respect to the conspiracy claims of the various media, there are also numerous other conspiracy claims on various subjects.  There are a myriad of unproven theories about every subject under the sun, some plausible, most not.  In just the past few years, we have been subjected to claims of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against President Clinton, claims that President Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and claims that President Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim.  Just because it’s in print, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

The conspiracy against Santa Claus has been going on for over one hundred years.  In 1897, eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Sun asking for the truth about Santa.  The paper’s editorial response makes many excellent points about the Santa conspiracy.  First noting that the Santa skeptics are the product of a skeptical age who lack the ability to believe in anything that they cannot see.  It also points out the maxim of scientists that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Like many things in life, reality is not limited by what we can see.  We can’t see the wind, but we know it is there.  We can’t see an atom, but we take it on faith that its subatomic bonds will not allow a chair to fade into nothingness as we sit down.  We can’t see God, but we know He is there because He makes His presence known in the world through His creation (Romans 1:20).  

Similarly, we may not see Santa Claus flying through the sky on Christmas Eve, but we can see the effects of his annual journey.  We see Santa in the Christmas Spirit of hope through Christ, generosity to our fellow man, and childlike faith.  The colors of Santa’s suit (and Christmas in general) reflect the Christian origins of the holiday.  Red represents the blood of Christ that was shed on the cross to pay for humanity’s sins.  White represents the purity and holiness of Jesus.  The green of the holly and Christmas trees stands for the hope of eternal life.  Silver and gold are associated with the Christmas star as well as the treasures brought by the Magi.

Whether there is one Santa or a hundred thousand Santas around the world, there is ample of evidence of the Santa’s mark on the world.  The compassion and generosity of Santa Claus helps us to see the love and hope that Christ offers the world.  If Santa were nothing but the product of a vast, Christmas conspiracy, the world would be a colder and darker place indeed.