No, Drake Is Not Dead
On the evening of Nov. 14, 2020, #RIPDrake rose to become the number one Twitter trend in the United States.   However, it was not true that the rapper had passed away. Twitter pinned a message at the top of the #RIPDrake trend informing viewers that it was a death hoax: "No, Drake is not dead. The rumors arose after users began to share photoshopped images of articles saying the rapper had died":   Some tweets shared screenshots of reports supposedly taken from TMZ and Genius. The fake TMZ headline read "Drake dead at 34 after a drive-by shooting." The fake Genius headline, which may have been shared more widely, read: "Drake's Family Releases Info Saying Drake Passed Away." A number of tweets spread the rumor, while others reacted after finding out it was not true: spread the rumor
In the weeks after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on 14 February 2018, killing seventeen people, Internet trolls and "hoaxers" continued to share an already completely debunked rumor that David Hogg  a teenaged survivor of the mass shooting who has since become an outspoken advocate of gun control  is actually a professional actor who went to school in southern California:   As Hogg's classmates have pointed out and as we reported previously, the above meme is a very low-quality, low-effort Internet hoax  the photograph actually confirms that Hogg is legitimately an Marjory Stone Douglas High School student because the image was taken from MSD's yearbook, a fact that could be gleaned from another student in the very same image wearing an MSD "Eagles" mascot shirt two rows above him: reported previously Theres a photo going around claiming David Hogg did not attend Douglas, but a school in California. Heres a video to debunk that: pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF pic.twitter.com/hJsMNSdAsF  Joey (@_Joey_Wong) February 21, 2018 February 21, 2018  Hogg had visited California in 2017 and witnessed an altercation, about which he made a video blog  a simple fact that was blown out by conspiracy theorists to mean he already lived in Los Angeles and was part of the entertainment industry. (Hogg did live in California, but relocated with his family to Florida before starting high school; he returns to visit every year, as many people do.)  video blog Nikolas Cruz, 19, a former Marjory Stone Douglas student who used an AR-15 semi-automatic firearm he had reportedly purchased from a gun store to carry out the mass shooting, has since been charged with murder; Parkland students have galvanized a national movement calling for stricter gun legislation. Hogg has been one of the most vocal leaders in what has become known as the "March For Our Lives." known as The students' activism has made them the target of "hoaxers"  deranged Internet users and grifters who spread false information that mass shooting incidents are manufactured by the government to seize guns and hand power to a secret global cabal working to install an authoritarian world government. hoaxers Such hoaxers have periodically been arrested and jailed for physically stalking and harassing survivors, but despite their outlandish beliefs and apparent moral debasement, they are not exactly the "fringe." Far-right web sites and Internet personalities like GatewayPundit.com writer Lucian Wintrich, undeterred by ongoing lawsuits related to previous conspiracy theory-related blunders, have claimed the Parkland students were reading from scripts, while the National Rifle Association said in an official statement in response to a nationwide march on 24 March 2018 that the events were staged by "Hollywood elites." arrested jailed stalking ongoing lawsuits blunders claimed statement DAngelo, Bob.  "NRA: March Fueled By 'Gun-Hating Billionaires and Hollywood Elites.'"
Dayton Daily News.  25 March 2018. Herman, John. "The Making of a No. 1 YouTube Conspiracy Video After the Parkland Tragedy."
The New York Times.  21 February 2018. Chavez, Nicole.  "School Shooting Survivor Knocks Down 'Crisis Actor' Claim."
CNN.  21 February 2018. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took some heat from CNNs Jake Tapper during anApril 3 interview. The topic: The degree of public transparency Sanders has provided for his tax returns. Tapper brought up the topic: Im kind of surprised that you havent gone further on transparency. You released the summary page of your 2014 tax returns. Hillary Clinton has posted on her website the last eight years of her personal returns, all of the returns. Before the New York primary, will you match her? Will you post your full returns for the last eight years? Sanders responded, You know who does our tax returns? My wife does our tax returns. Weve been a little bit busy lately. So we will get out as much information as we can. There aint going to be very much exciting in that. I get a salary from the United States Senate, you know, theres not going to be anything new in it that people havent seen for the last many years, but we will get it out as soon as we can. Tapper wasnt satisfied. But nobody has seen them at all, I guess, is the point, and whether or not theres anything exciting in them.... At this point, Sanders interjected, No, that is not true. That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past. Our financial situation, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed very much, but we will get out all of that information as soon as we can. How transparent has Sanders been with his tax past returns? Not very, compared with others in the 2016 presidential field. Heres a closer look. As our friends at theWashington PostFact Checkerhave noted, Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy, has been collecting publicly available tax returns of presidential candidates and other top officials for itsTax History Project. This archive goes back as far as the 1913 tax returns of future president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Heres a look at what theircurrent archiveof the 2016 candidates looks like:   In other words, among the candidates still in the race, Sanders releases are less extensive than anybodys but Donald Trump. (Trump, too, hasfaced criticismfor refusing to share his returns.) And Sanders shortcomings are actually bigger than the screenshot above would suggest. The2014 filings Sanders releasedconsist of just the first two summary pages of his Form 1040 and the equivalent summary pages from his home-state Vermont tax form. Why does this matter? Unlike most of the other candidates, Sanders has not released the succeeding pages -- the nitty gritty detail of things like charitable donations and other types of itemized deductions. For instance,Clintons release for tax year 2014is 44 pages long, or more than 10 times the length of Sanders for the same year. Its worth noting that Sanders, as a member of Congress, filesannual financial disclosures, which are accessible online back to 2012. And as a presidential candidate, he also filesfinancial disclosure documentsto the Federal Election Commission. But tax returns are much more detailed. And despite what Sanders said in the exchange with Tapper, his campaign did not provide PolitiFact with any earlier, publicly available tax forms. The campaign told thePostthat it has not released any other tax returns prior to 2014. (The campaign did tell PolitiFact that they would release his 2015 returns once they are filed.) Tax and disclosure experts we contacted agreed that Sanders current disclosures are weak by historical standards. If I filed the first two pages of my return with the IRS, it would not take long for them to ding me, said Kenneth A. Gross of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and a specialist in political disclosure and ethics. There is a lot of information on the pages following the cover pages. Joseph J. Thorndike, the Tax Analysts official who heads the Tax History Project, agreed. Sanders has not, in fact, released his most recent tax return, Thorndike said. He has released a portion of that return. The IRS would not accept a Form 1040 as a complete return and neither should voters. Also, its worth noting that Sanders has not released any portion of his older returns. If Mitt Romney had tried to release an incomplete return in 2012, the media would never have accepted it. Our ruling Sanders told Tapper that his campaign has released his past tax returns. Sanders said his 2015 return is forthcoming, and he has made other types of disclosures in the past, including congressional and presidential-candidate filings. But his releases of prior-year tax forms -- the specific documents Tapper asked about -- have been limited in several ways. Hes only released information for one year, which pales compared to most other recent presidential candidates, and even that years release only includes a summary page, not the full return. We rate his claim False. UPDATE: As he had promised, Sandersreleasedhisfull 2014 tax returnon April 15, 2016. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ba140e0d-4c11-436d-ad29-15e562ba5a98 When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was coming around to the idea of a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and considering restarting construction on it. Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Charlie Kirk below-displayed Facebook post another foot of wall   While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." executive order dubbed As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing  about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press said Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. news reports Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. article Alejandro Mayorkas It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). Business Insider According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: 'The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished,' he said. He said those parts include 'gaps,' 'gates,' and areas 'where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.' Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. order It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: White House transcript C-SPAN video Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop for a plan  its paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds.  When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits  and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it  by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues.  Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is  it is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused. The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript.  C-SPAN White House transcript "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We dont believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall as an answer to addressing the challenges  immigration challenges at the border.  Theres a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but its currently paused and  for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." tweeted @POTUS  In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown -- no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Making an economicspeechat the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse on July 2, 2015, Barack Obama ticked off a list of his accomplishments as president -- and made a bolder version of a claim we have heard before about slashing the federal budget deficit. So, weve got a record streak of private-sector job growth, Obama said in his remarks, which includedveiled criticismsof Gov. Scott Walker on the day Walker filed federal papers as a precursor to announcing his run for president. Weve cut the deficit by two-thirds. Our stock market has more than doubled, restoring 401(k)s for millions of families. This is progress. Step by step, America is moving forward. Middle-class economics works. It works. Yes!Here's why the deficit claim caught our attention: In September 2014 in Milwaukee, Obama said he had cut the deficit in half. Werated that statement True, and it has become one of our most-clicked fact checks. Could it be that, less than a year later, the deficit is down by two-thirds? Deficit vs debt Lets be clear at the top that Obama is talking about the deficit, which has been getting smaller -- not the debt, which is getting bigger. The deficit is an annual number. Its the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The United States hasnt seen budgetsurplusessince the days of President Bill Clinton. The debt, meanwhile, is a running tally -- its the total of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. The nation's debt currently exceeds$18 trillion, and it has risen by more than$7 trillionunder Obama. (Heres agood primerfrom PolitiFact National on the difference between the two.) Tracking the deficit numbers In reviewing the cut-the-deficit-in-half claim, our baseline was fiscal 2009. That period started on Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, and ended on Sept. 30, 2009, eight months after Obama took office. We found the deficit was $1.41 trillion in 2009 and $679.5 billion in 2013 -- a drop of more than half. Measured another way, the deficit made up 9.8 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2009 and dropped to less than half of that -- 4.1 percent -- by the end of fiscal 2013. But now we have figures for fiscal 2014. PolitiFact National examined those figures in January 2015, after Obama said in his State of the Union speech that we've seen our deficits cut by two-thirds. Our colleagues rated his statementMostly True. The 2014 deficit was $486 billion -- a drop of two-thirds from the $1.41 trillion in 2009. And it was 2.8 percent of GDP, a reduction of more than two-thirds from the 9.8 percent in 2009. (In June 2015, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2015 will end with a deficit that, as a percentage of GDP, will be the lowest since 2007.) So, math wise, Obamas two-thirds claim is solid. But there are a few caveats. Yes, we reduced the deficit two-thirds from its peak in 2009, but that was after deficits had just increased by nearly 800 percent to theirhighest leveloutside of World War II, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us. Indeed, Obamahelped growthe 2009 deficit with his stimulus spending, although he can take some credit for the economy, which has improved since the Great Recessionendedin June 2009 and helped bring down the deficits. And although the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits relative to GDP will decline slightly over the next few years, they will then rise and add more to the debt. Largely as a result of the aging population and rising health care costs, CBOprojectsthe deficit to grow from less than 3 percent of GDP in 2015 to more than 6 percent in 2040. Our rating Obama said: We've cut the deficit by two-thirds. In raw dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy, the annual federal deficit in 2014 was two-thirds smaller than in 2009, the year Obama took office. But there are several caveats, including the fact that his stimulus spending helped raise the 2009 deficit and the economy, for which he can take some credit, has improved since the end of the Great Recession the same year. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. On 12 February 2017, the Facebook page "GreenYatra" published an imagethat bore the claim thatolive oil canbe used to prevent or reverse "sagging breasts": published image   The image-based claim didn't link to any articles or other corroborating information, saying only: Massaging your breasts with olive oil is an excellent technique to firm sagging breasts. Olive oil is a rich source of antioxidants and fatty acids that can reverse the damage caused by free radicals and prevent sagging breasts. Plus, it will help improve the skin tone and texture. According to the claim, topical application of olive oil either circumvents or reverses loss of elasticity in breasts. No specific reason was provided for the claim that olive oil, versus any other type of oil,could replicate the effect shown. The efficacy of topical treatments for sagging breasts or loss of skin elasticity is often discussed in cosmetic circles, thanksin part to the cost and invasiveness of surgical approaches. But research demonstrating any single topical ingredient can prevent (much less reverse) loss of skin elasticity is notably skimpy: notably Antioxidant ointments, creams, and lotions may help reduce the risk of wrinkles and protect against sun damage. Unlike sunscreens, they build up in the skin and are not washed away, so the protection may last longer. Selenium, coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), and alpha-lipoic acid are antioxidants that can be applied to the skin. Evidence of their benefit is limited and more studies in humans are needed. More commonly used antioxidants are described below. Your dermatologist (skin doctor) can tell you which product is right for you. Research from 2012 indicates that anxioxidants could potentially prevent damage to facial skin, but evidence was "limited" and reversal was not referenced. Only 1.5 percent of olive oil contains antioxidants (and that fraction is not composed entirely of antioxidants). Other foods are described as being higher in antioxidants, but no memes recommended rubbing a berry paste onto breasts for firmness. Research overwhelmingly examined efficacy of topical treatment for facial skin, which lacks the weight and density of breast tissue. And although topicals designed for facial skin need only penetrate a few dermal layers, any product designed or intended for useon breasts would have to enter the breast tissue to "lift" or prevent elasticity loss (a far taller order). contains described A blog post written by Miami-based cosmetic surgeon Dr. Ary Krau directly addressesthe question of whether any specific topical substance (including olive oil) had ever shown promise to improve loss of elasticity for breast tissue in clinical research: addresses Unfortunately, no cream or lotion has been clinically proven or FDA-approved to lift the breasts into a higher position. Dont waste your money on any product that claims to improve your breast position. While genetics play a big role in breast sagging, there are a few things you can do to prevent it in the first place. Try not to fluctuate greatly in body weight; gaining and losing a lot of weight in a short period of time can take its toll on the breasts. Be diligent about wearing sunscreen on your chest and dcolletage area to protect the skin from the suns rays. Wear a supportive bra as much as possible, especially when performing high-intensity aerobic exercise. We contacted Dr. Krau's office, and a representative for the clinic told usthat no effective topical treatment appears to exist. A thorough search of related studies turned up no strong evidence facial skin or breast tissue could be firmed by topical treatments at all. A 5percent concentration of Vitamin C (not olive oil) showedmoderate success in treatment of photo-aging in a small 2003 study, but those findings were not relevant to breast tissue or olive oil. 2003 There isresearch [PDF] (conducted by individuals who contracted with cosmetic medical firms) that indicates somesuccess in the ongoing development of a topical version of botulinum toxin type A (popularly known by the brand name Botox) and intended solely for the face. However, thatresearchonly concerns a clinically prescribed substance (botulinum toxin, not a pantry product) and includedno indications that it could beused on breast tissue. PDF Crawford, Holly.  "Sagging Skin  What You and Your Doctor Can Do."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. Glogau, Richard MD et. al.  "Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Botulinum Toxin Type A Topical Gel for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Lateral Canthal Lines."
  Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.  January 2012. Humbert, PG et al.  "Topical Ascorbic Acid on Photoaged Skin. Clinical, Topographical And Ultrastructural Evaluation: Double-Blind Study Vs. Placebo."
  Experimental Dermatology.  June 2003. Krau, Ary MD.  "Is There a Topical Cream for Lifting the Breasts?"
  Ary Krau MD.  22 January 2016. Magee, Elaine.  "10 Nutrient-Rich Super Foods."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC).   "Skin Wrinkles and Blemishes."
  Updated 18 December 2012. International Olive Council.  "The Antioxidant Properties Of The Olive Oil."
    Accessed 16 February 2017. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. Jim Kenneys proposed soda tax went national last week. Hillary Clinton led off what became a back-and-forth political battle byvoicing her supportfor the tax at a forum in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanderschimed inlater to call the tax regressive. Kenneyfired backin an editorial onHuffington Postthat his proposal, which would levy a three cent per ounce tax on distributors, was a corporate tax and said Sanders was siding with beverage corporations. Then Sanders responded with an editorial of his own, inPhilly Mag. He basically gave an elongated version of what he said earlier in the week, which was, A tax on soda and juice drinks would disproportionately increase taxes on low-income families in Philadelphia. Is Sanders correct? Or was this political grandstanding? Berkeley, Calif., remains the lone American city to enact a sugary drink tax. It taxes the distributors of sodas and similar beverages like sports drinks 1 cent per ounce. Studies have shown some of the cost of tax has been passed on to consumers.A Cornell studyfound about 25 percent of it was passed on, anda University of California-Berkeley studyfound the amount to be between about 50 to 70 percent, depending on the type of beverage. The prices of soft drinks were more likely to go up at supermarkets than chain drug stores. Carl Davis, the research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, toldBilly Pennlast month soda taxes like the one proposed by Philadelphia are imperfect: The first thing you realize is that it is regressive. Its going to hit lower and more moderate income families more heavily than higher-income families. William Shughart, a Utah State University professor and sin tax expert,explainedtaxes like the one proposed by Kenney disproportionately affect lower income residents because a greater amount of their income is used on food and drinks. Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor for Sanders, said in an email, It would make much more sense to finance universal pre-school in Philadelphia by raising taxes on its wealthiest residents, who currently benefit from flat state and city tax rates. Right now wealthy Philadelphianspaystate income tax of 3.07 percent, an unemployment tax of 0.07 percent, and a city income tax of 3.92 percent. Thats a total state and local tax burden of 7.06 percent. By contrast, New York Citys wealthiest residents pay a top rate of 12.6 percent. Such a plan would be easier said than done, according to Kenneys administration. Because of the uniformity clause, its constitutionally impermissible right now in Pennsylvania to raise the income tax rate only for wealthy individuals, said Lauren Hitt, Kenneys communications director. The Republican controlled state legislature would have to change the constitution and were not holding our breath on that one. Our kids need Pre-K now. Kenney has said the tax is not regressive because he believes the money will stay in the neighborhoods. His finance director, Rob Dubow,saidmost consumers of sugary drinks are in poor neighborhoods. When Dubow suggested distributors would absorb some of the tax, City Council president Darrell Clarkeresponded, Fundamentally, I dont believe that. Our ruling Sanders said Kenneys proposed soda tax would disproportionately increase taxes for low income families. In the only other instance of a soda tax in the United States, studies have shown somewhere between 25 and 70 percent of the cost of the tax gets passed to consumers. Tax experts say if this tax reaches the consumer level it would affect low income residents to a greater extent. We rule the claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/19db2be2-02d7-4cfd-baa1-423db2d4d80f In April 2021, after U.S. President Joe Biden's first address to a joint session of Congress, the left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a meme that claimed Republican Congress members had abjectly failed to applaud Biden's stated goal of drastically reducing the rate of child poverty in the United States. The meme, posted on April 28, the evening of the speech, contained what appeared to be a screenshot from a video stream, showing the Democratic side of the House of Representatives chamber standing and applauding, while members on the Republican side (circled in red) largely sat and did not appear to applaud. The meme contained the following text: posted Everything you need to know about today's Republican party is that Biden just said that because of his stimulus bill, America is cutting child poverty in half... And not a single Republican clapped.   As events with a significant element of ritual and political theater, the newly elected president's first Congressional address and subsequent State of the Union addresses are the frequent subjects of political points-scoring and at times divisive analysis. Partisans on both sides habitually scrutinize the actions and body language of politicians from the opposite side, and Snopes has examined such claims several times in the past.  examined such claims It's also worth noting that representatives and senators, in the context of an address by a president from the other party, might choose to applaud or stand, or not, for various reasons, even when the president has made a statement that some might interpret as worthy of universal support or celebration.  For example, during then-President Donald Trump's equivalent address to a joint session of Congress, in February 2017, he touted the retention of manufacturing and jobs within the United States, saying various major companies "have announced that they will invest billions and billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs."  In response, Republicans stood, cheered, and applauded, while cameras showed that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained impassive. remained impassive A politically motivated interpretation of her body language might be that she failed to applaud because she hates American jobs, or resented economic growth under Trump's tenure. However, a more plausible explanation is that she doubted the underlying sincerity of Trump's commitment to increased employment, that she objected to his presenting those commercial decisions as one of his own accomplishments, and so on.  Similarly, during his 2018 State of the Union address, Trump said "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs," which was greeted with cheering and applause by Republicans, but almost total silence among Democrats. That could be a sign that those Democrats despise job creation, but it's much more likely to mean that they objected to Trump's touting employment figures as one of his own accomplishments, for example.  silence Those important disclaimers should be borne in mind when considering the actions and body language of Republicans during Biden's April 2021 address.  As is customary, Biden listed what he presented as the achievements of his first 100 days in office: expanded access to health care; the provision of stimulus checks; added investment in veterans' health care; and H.R. 1319, the "American Rescue Plan"  a major stimulus and relief package to aid in the federal government's response to the public health and economic crises engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic.  H.R. 1319 Biden went on to say:  Were making one of the largest one-time ever investments  ever  in improving healthcare for veterans. Critical investments to address the opioid crisis. And, maybe most importantly, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, were on track to cut child poverty in America in half this year.  That declaration was met with a standing ovation and universal applause among Democrats in the chamber:  The screenshot included in the Occupy Democrats meme was authentic and showed a snapshot of the reaction to Biden's child poverty remarks on both sides of the chamber. Here's roughly the same view, taken from the CBS News live stream of the speech. Democrats can be seen on the right-hand side, while the Republican side is on the left: live stream   However, Occupy Democrats' claim that "not a single Republican" applauded Biden's remarks seriously misrepresented what actually happened. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  In reality, our analysis of video footage from the address shows that at least 11 individuals seated in the Republican half of the chamber applauded in response to Biden's remarks on child poverty. We have positively identified two of those as cabinet secretaries Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken, who are not Congressional Republicans and therefore don't factor into our debunking of the Occupy Democrats meme, but for the record, can be seen below, with Austin standing on the left and Blinken standing on the right:   The remaining nine individuals who applauded were all highly likely to be Congressional Republicans, providing ample evidence to discredit the "not a single Republican" claim. Those 11 individuals are highlighted in the screenshot below, and we have positively identified the following three Congressional Republicans: To view a larger, more detailed version of this annotated screenshot, click here. click here   Although clearly not as enthusiastic as their Democratic counterparts, the extent of Republican applause for Biden's remarks is fully revealed by carefully viewing the following footage:  The claim that "not a single Republican clapped" when Biden mentioned halving child poverty was manifestly false. In fact, several of them clearly did, three of whom we have so far been able to positively identify. If and when we confirm the identity of additional Congressional Republicans, we will update this fact check accordingly.