John Stossel Fired?
Claim:  ABC News' 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel was fired for trying to air a piece critical of health care reform.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Amazing that John Stossel, the beauty boy of ABC and who was the true investigative reporter for the truly non-political program 20/20 program was fired when he tried to run this. Anyone know what is going on? Everyone like the change? Now you can hear and see WHY John was fired!!! (Where was Obama?> The following link is to John Stossel's ABC (20-20) special that was delayed by ABC until after Henry Waxman's House committee voted on HR3200. Possibly you have already seen it because, thank goodness, a lot of people have discovered it and are forwarding it to everyone they know. ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062   Origins:  In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX:  John Stossel FOX Award-winning journalist John Stossel has signed a multi-year deal with FOX Business Network and the FOX News Channel. Stossel, who is best known for his work on ABC's "20/20," will anchor a one-hour, weekly program on FOX Business, entitled "Stossel." It will debut in the fourth quarter of 2009 in FOX Business's prime-time lineup. The program will look at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care and free trade. Contrary to what is claimed above, no one involved  not ABC, Fox, or John Stossel himself  reported or claimed that Stossel had been "fired" (for "trying to run a program on health care" or any other reason).  John Stossel voluntarily chose to leave ABC and take up a better opportunity with Fox: In a post on his ABC blog, Mr. Stossel said he wanted to "dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government'" on the program. "ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more air time and a new challenge," he added. In a statement, ABC News wished Mr. Stossel well and said he would be "an asset to Fox News in this next chapter of his terrific career." It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform.   As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009: Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation? Here's one blog comment, after I reported that ABC will hold my health care report in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage: Free market in action. See there Stossel? What's not to like about that?Posted by: jan | Jun 26, 2009 5:12:12 PM p.s. Stossel. You've been hoisted on your own petard. Cheerio. Jan is right. It's the free market in action.  Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice.  Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report.  But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt. Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business.  Id rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch "serious" programming.  Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson.  I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad. Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech.  I treasure free speech too. Last updated:  5 November 2009    FOX Business.  "John Stossel to Join FOX Business Network."   10 September 2009.
Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here A number of tweets and posts began circulating online in June 2020, unearthing old posts from the Obama Foundation and alleging a conspiracy connecting the foundation to George Floyd. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police officer held him down and kneeled on his neck. Protests around the country against police brutality followed, with some people carrying posters with Floyd's face to commemorate him.  tweets posts died In early June, social media users stumbled upon an Obama Foundation tweet dated May 17 that featured a photograph of a poster with Floyd's face on it. They questioned how the photo could have been shared days before Floyd's death and how a Twitter post allegedly could be edited retroactively:   The Hal Turner Radio Show, a far-right program, said about this and some other tweets that featured the same image, "Something stinks here." Some social media users speculated that the foundation somehow knew in advance that Floyd would die.  Hal Turner Radio Show program speculated This rumor has no truth to it. The Obama Foundation's tweets shared links to its website, Obama.org. The preview image for that page updates dynamically on Twitter when the platform's web crawlers (bots) re-index (restructure the website data for) the preview image for the website every week. Obama.org In other words, at a certain point following Floyd's death the foundation changed the Twitter Card image for the website, which retroactively updated the image on past tweets. A Twitter spokesperson told Snopes that the image shown in the card updates when the foundation updates the data used to generate the card. The group did not edit the tweet, according to the spokesperson, but may have changed the data associated with the link. This is the image shared on May 16, in a screenshot: Twitter Card   We reached out to the Obama Foundation to ask about the photo on June 8. On June 9, the image from the May 16 post had been changed to the foundation's logo:   An Obama Foundation spokesperson confirmed for us that the rumor is false, and that the preview image for Obama.org updates dynamically based on information set in the link. The photograph of the poster with Floyd's face on it was taken on May 30, 2020, according to the foundation, and was first used on the site on May 31.  We therefore rate this claim as  Cheung, Helier. "George Floyd Death: Why US Protests Are So Powerful This Time."
 BBC News. 8 June 2020. Hal Turner Radio Show. "How Did the Obama Foundation Tweet a George Floyd Poster on May 17, When He Wasn't Killed Until May 25?"
 6 June 2020. Southern Poverty Law Center. "Hal Turner." True Pundit. "WATCH: Suspicious Mystery Grows Debating Obamas Tweeted Photo of George Floyd NINE DAYS Before His Death."
 9 June 2020. Phishing bait:  E-mail solicits recipients to create CDC Vaccination Profiles. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] CDC [vaccination@cdcdelivery.gov] You have received this e-mail because of the launching of State Vaccination H1N1 Program. You need to create your personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The Vaccination is not obligatory, but every person that has reached the age of 18 has to have his personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. This profile has to be created both for the vaccinated people and the not-vaccinated ones. This profile is used for the registering system of vaccinated and not-vaccinated people. Create your Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile using the link: create personal profile   Origins:  Swine flu is currently a strong concern among many people, especially with the vaccine's being difficult to obtain in many places.  Therefore, an e-mail like the one displayed above (which was spammed to many recipients in December 2009), seemingly originating with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and informing readers that they must go to the CDC's web site to create a "Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile," was bound to catch people's attention. However, this message is just a phishing lure and did not originate with the CDC: That organization does not send out unsolicited e-mail, there is no requirement that everyone under 18  register a personal vaccination profile with the CDC, and the return address on the messages uses an apparently non-existent domain  (cdcdelivery.gov).  Clicking through on the "create personal profile" link provided takes the user to a phony CDC look-alike site within the .IM (Isle of Man) domain, which offers a page that includes a "Download Archive" link which (if clicked) triggers an executable file:  Activating that file results in the installation of malwarewhich gives scammers access to the user's computer: malware The link provided in the email takes you to a very convincing imitation of a CDC web page where you are given a temporary ID and a link to your "vaccination profile." The link is in fact to an executable file that contains a copy of a Trojan most commonly identified as Zbot. This Trojan once installed on your PC, this Trojan will create a security-free gateway on your system and will proceed to download and install additional malware without your authorization. It also enables a remote hacker to take complete control of your computer. This malware can log your typed keystrokes and send confidential personal and financial data (including banking information, credit card numbers, and website passwords) to a remote hacker. The CDC  has posted a notice on its web site advising that:  notice CDC has received reports of fraudulent emails (phishing) referencing a CDC sponsored State Vaccination Program. The messages request that users must create a personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The message then states that anyone that has reached the age of 18 has to have his/her personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. The CDC has NOT implemented a state vaccination program requiring registration on www.cdc.gov. Users that click on the email are at risk of having malicious code installed on their system. Last updated:  1 December 2009 Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. On Nov. 24, 2022, a Facebook user posted a picture of a blue owl. However, blue owls are not real, meaning that the image was a fake. posted  The post from Nov. 24 was shared at least 2,000 times in a little over one week. It was the earliest posting of the picture that we have found so far. On Twitter, the fake blue owl picture, which showed cat-like whiskers for the animal, received hundreds of thousands of likes. For example, this tweet from@jimrosecircus1 was posted on Dec. 1, 2022. It showed nearly 150,000 likes by the next day. The caption read, "I hope you don't mind this adorably majestic blue owl in your newsfeed." tweet  Under the tweet, Twitter added a context note that read, "There is no such thing as blue owl. It looks really good but unfortunately it's not true." On Dec. 2, the @daily__owls Twitter account also posted the fake picture of the blue owl with the misleading caption, "The beautiful Norwegian Blue owl." posted  According to Brittanica.com, "owls vary in color from white through many shades of tan, gray, brown, or rufous (reddish) to deep brown." Despite the beauty of the blue and orange owl in the picture, it's just not real. Brittanica.com Hoax hunter @HoaxEye tweeted of the blue owl image that it may have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The tweet also tagged the user @Valdevia_Art, who added that they believed it was likely not as simple as a color change in Adobe Photoshop. Instead, the user said that it "does seem AI-generated." tweeted added said This wasn't the first time a picture of a purportedly blue owl made its way around social media. In 2021, USA Today's fact-check team debunkeda picture of what online posts referred to as a "blue Philippines owl." VisitCryptoVille.com previously published a story about the same picture five years earlier. debunked picture story Back in 2019, AFP filed a report about a "beautiful blue owl of Madagascar," which also was fake. report At Snopes, we've previously fact-checked photos purporting to show a multicolored "rainbow owl" (fake) and a "rare red owl with blue eyes" (also fake). rainbow owl rare red owl with blue eyes This story will be updated if we find more details about the origins of the blue owl picture. As noted by some knowledgeable Twitter users, it may have simply been generated by AI. @Daily__Owls. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/Daily__Owls/status/1598613376992792576. @HoaxEye. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1598734104396079104. @jimrosecircus1. Twitter, 1 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/jimrosecircus1/status/1598366192817045504. "Owl - Appearance and Classification." Britannica.Com, https://www.britannica.com/animal/owl/Form-and-function. Sadeghi, McKenzie. "Fact Check: Viral Image Claiming to Be a Blue Philippine Owl Is Doctored." USA TODAY, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/22/fact-check-viral-image-purported-blue-philippine-owl-doctored/4533533001/. Salah, Dr. Muhammad. "Just Admire the Beauty of Allah's Creation!" Facebook, 24 Nov. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/MSalahOfficial/posts/pfbid0TazmyskVgTA2axagkDCMNrAUqheW4LRPz91UvMUaK3v6xywK5JgrQHjLy6YysK61l. "The Blue Owl of the Philippines 19-31." VisitCryptoVille.com, 19 Jan. 2016, https://visitcryptoville.com/2016/01/19/the-blue-owl-of-the-philippines-19-31/. @Valdevia_Art. Twitter, 2 Dec. 2022, https://twitter.com/valdevia_art/status/1598752209935560706. Yan, Rachel. "No, This Is Not a Genuine Photo of a Blue Owl in Madagascar." AFPFact Check, 4 June 2019, https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-genuine-photo-blue-owl-madagascar. In a debate in Nashville on Oct. 7, 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain tussled over tax policy. Obama, responding to a question about fiscal responsibility, said the federal debt needs to be reduced in a way that shares the burden fairly. Now, when Senator McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden. To come up with that number, the Obama campaign cites an average CEO salary of $12.8-million and a tax savings of 5.5 percent for the top earners during the year 2012 under a McCain administration. That comes to about $705,000. The math is accurate, but the numbers require a small amount of explanation. The $12.8-million comes from aForbesmagazine study of the average CEO compensation in 2007 for the 500 largest companies. Technically speaking, this would not be the Fortune 500, a listing compiled byFortunemagazine. An extremely minor point, but we note it to giveForbesits due for compiling the study. The 5.5 percent tax savings comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which estimated tax impact for income brackets under the McCain plan. They created an analysis that draws on the candidates' campaign stump speeches, and found that according to those proposals, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a 5.5 percent decrease in their tax rates in 2012 under McCain's plan. That comes to $700,000. But the center also did an analysis based on information from the candidates' economic advisers, and those policies are slightly more conservative than what the candidates say in their stump speeches. For example, the candidates will talk about a proposal as if it will begin immediately, when the advisers say it will actually be phased in. Using the more conservative analysis, CEOs would receive a tax rate decrease of 2.1 percent, or about $270,000. That's still a big number, but not quite as big as $700,000. It's not surprising that candidates select the numbers most advantageous to their argument, but it's worth noting that there is a different way to look at this calculation that is also valid. Still, Obama is using credible numbers from independent sources to make his point. It does seem that high earners do better under John McCain's plan. We rate his statement Mostly True. Some critics of Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded with a measure of ridicule and criticism in the Spring of 2019, after remarks she made about the introduction of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which imposed a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. The Washington Examiner, for example, wrote: wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., might want to brush up on some history after asserting, incorrectly, that Republicans in Congress amended the Constitution to kick President Franklin Delano Roosevelt out of office. "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," Ocasio-Cortez said [March 29] during a night hall event with MSNBC with Chris Hayes. According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which passed in 1947. The text of the amendment states, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. FDR died in 1945, meaning he was dead for a full two years before presidential term limits were implemented. That article was re-published on the website of Fox News, along with the headline "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez alsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office." re-published The New York Post joined in the criticism, writing: writing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be getting As in social media  but shes getting an F in basic history. The Bronx-Queens Democrat flunked 20th century world events last week when she claimed during a town-hall meting [sic] that the Constitution was changed to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from being re-elected. In fact, he died two years before the amendment to which she was referring was passed and six years before it was ratified by the requisite number of states. A video clip of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks was prominently shared on Twitter by Tom Elliott, who added: "According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: 'They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected.' (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947)." According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected." (Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy  Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019 March 31, 2019   Critics of Ocasio-Cortez pounced on her remarks as evidence of a purported lack of historical knowledge on her part. However, the Congresswoman's subsequent comments on the subject, along with clarification provided by her spokesperson, indicated the intended meaning of her remarks was that the catalyst behind the development of the two-term limit (which was ultimately enshrined in the 22nd amendment) had been Roosevelt's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s, and not that the introduction of the 22nd amendment (as opposed to Roosevelt's death) prevented what would have been his fourth re-election. The Congresswoman's remarks came during a web-only question-and-answer session recorded during her appearance on MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes on 29 March, whose focus was the "Green New Deal," a plan put forward by Ocasio-Cortez ;and fellow Democrat Senator Ed Markey to tackle climate change and create jobs centered around renewable energy. plan Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, asked Ocasio-Cortez what lessons she had learned from the "New Deal," the series of economic projects FDR introduced in the 1930s with the intention of helping the U.S. economy to recover from the Great Depression, and the program to which the "Green New Deal" is an allusion. One of the points Ocasio-Cortez made in response to that question was to highlight the importance of Democratic success in facilitating the passage of legislation that introduced New Deal programs. Here's a (lightly edited) transcript of that segment, which can be viewed below: Paul:...What are the lessons from the New Deal that we can bring in today? Ocasio-Cortez: There's [sic] a lot. One is, you know when we talk, when we start picking apart the problem of political will --you know, "Technologically possible, is it politically feasible?" -- one of the big parts of political will is fear, especially fear within our own party. "If we do this, if we are a little too bold, we will lose our majorities, we will lose everything." And it is a difficult question because the House has been gerrymandered in ways that are extremely difficult. But I think there's [sic] a couple of lessons. One is that, when we look into our history, when our [Democratic] party was boldest -- the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on -- we had and carried supermajorities in the House, in the Senate, we carried the presidency. They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected. And there were so many extraordinary things that were happening in that time that were uniting working people, and so that, I think, is one of the encouraging lessons ...  The point Ocasio-Cortez was making in that section of the interview was to highlight the role that electoral success for Democrats -- not least of which was FDR's repeated presidential victories during the 1930s and 1940s -- played in facilitating the introduction of major reforms such as the New Deal programs. FDR was first elected in 1932, then re-elected three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. To illustrate the extent of FDR's power and popularity at that time, the Congresswoman said: "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." The manner in which she phrased that statement ("They had to ... to make sure") indicated, on its face, that Ocasio-Cortez was saying that the introduction of the two-term limit in the 22nd Amendment was required in order to prevent FDR from being re-elected a fourth time. It is therefore understandable that some commentators seized upon her remarks and made the rather obvious point that the 22nd Amendment was not required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment was ratified and came into effect. (FDR died two years before the U.S. Congress passed the amendment, but it was not implemented until it was ratified by the requisite number of states six years after his death, contrary to the Washington Examiner's inaccurate statement that he had died "two years before presidential term limits were implemented.") However, that was not the intended meaning of Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, according to a spokesperson for the Congresswoman. The spokesperson told us it was "pretty clear" that her intention was simply to point out that FDR's repeated re-elections, and the sustained implementation of his policy agenda, had been the catalyst for Republican efforts to introduce a term limit on the U.S. presidency, a plan that began while FDR was still alive. That this was Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning is also supported by the fact that the Congresswoman approvingly tweeted out a Newsweek article that presented the "full story" behind her remarks, which reported that: tweeted article The dates appeared to leave the argument cut-and-dried, with both Fox News and the Washington Examiner running the story and calling Ocasio-Cortezs claims false. However, some eagle-eyed social media commenters pointed out that the original architects of the 22nd Amendment were inspired by Roosevelts monopoly on the White House and began campaigning long before his death ... The National Constitution Center also had Ocasio-Cortezs back. On its website, the nonpartisan organization explained: Talk about a presidential term-limits amendment started in 1944, when Republican candidate Thomas Dewey said a potential 16-year term for Roosevelt was a threat to democracy." It is unquestionably true that efforts to introduce a two-term limit on the U.S. presidency began before FDR's death and were intensified by his unprecedented third and fourth elections in 1940 and 1944. FDR's decision to break precedent and seek a third term in 1940 was in itself a significant part of Republican candidate Wendell Willkie's platform that year. In a speech accepting his party's nomination in August 1940, Willkie said: "I should like to debate the question of the assumption by this President, in seeking a third term, of a greater public confidence than was accorded to our presidential giants, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson." speech In a newspaper advertisement published days before the election, Republicans put "The Third Term" at the top of a list of major issues, writing: "Violating all principles of freedom, and a sacred American tradition of 150 years standing, the President forced his own nomination for a third term at the Chicago convention ... and gave as an excuse I was drafted.' Are we Americans that gullible? ... Let us say together, 'There is no indispensible man. There shall be no third term.'" advertisement   (In order to avoid the controversy of actively seeking to break the two-term tradition, FDR coyly declined to openly declare himself a candidate in 1940, and instead his supporters arranged for him to be "drafted" as a nominee by delegates at the 1940 Democratic National Convention.) In a statement issued the day before the election, Willkie called specifically for a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to eight years, saying that "When elected, in order to prevent any subsequent demonstrations of such ambitious views, in my first message to Congress I shall recommend that they submit a constitutional amendment limiting the time any one president may serve to eight years or less." statement Before FDR's third re-election in 1944, his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, also called for a term limit of the kind ultimately encapsulated in the 22nd Amendment. In a speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, just days before the election, Dewey said a fourth term for FDR would be "the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed," adding, "I believe that two terms must be established as the limit by constitutional amendment." speech FDR won his fourth presidential election that year, but he died just five months later, in April 1945, leaving Vice President Harry Truman to serve out nearly all of what would have been his fourth term. After the House of Representatives and Senate switched from Democratic to Republican control in the 1946 mid-term elections, the path was cleared for the 22nd amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1947. It eventually entered the U.S. Constitution in February 1951, when Nevada and Utah became the 35th and 36th U.S. states to ratify it, providing the required approval by three-quarters of the states. (The U.S. comprised only 48 states in 1951, with Alaska and Hawaii joining the Union in 1959.) ratify The 22nd amendment states, in part: states No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on MSNBC on 29 March was that, "They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get re-elected." It is understandable that some of her critics viewed this as her saying that the introduction of the 22nd Amendment was required to prevent FDR's fourth re-election, an assertion which would make no sense because FDR died in 1945, six years before the amendment entered into force. However, according to clarification provided to Snopes by her spokesperson, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's intended meaning was simply to point out that the catalyst for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution and impose a two-term limit had been FDR's repeated re-elections during the 1930s and 1940s. As we have shown, that is certainly true, and calls for such a constitutional amendment began to intensify even before FDR's second re-election in 1940, almost five years before his death. Gage, John.  "AOC Flubs History of FDR& and Change to Constitution."
  The Washington Examiner.  31 March 2019. Moore, Mark and Nikki Schwab.  "Ocasio-Cortez Falsely Says GOP Changed Constitution to Block FDR from Re-Election."
  The New York Post.  1 April 2019. Daly, Matthew.  "Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change."
  Associated Press.  7 February 2019. Paton, Callum.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Attacked on Twitter for Constitutional Mistake -- But Here's the Full Story."
  Newsweek.  1 April 2019. Willkie, Wendell.  "Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination in Elwood, Indiana."
  The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara.  17 August 1940. The Columbus Telegram.  "Americanism Must Live! [Republican Election Advertisement]."
  1 November 1940. Associated Press.  "Willkie Urges 2-Term Limit for Presidency."
  The [Wilimington] News Journal.  4 November 1940. United Press International.  "Dewey Declares Fourth Term Freedom Threat."
  The Salt Lake Tribune.  1 November 1944. Williams, Tom.  "Anti-3rd Term Amendment Ratified as Nevada Casts Required 36th State Vote."
  The Terre Haute Star.  27 February 1951. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.  "U.S. Constitution, 22nd Amendment."
  Accessed 2 April 2019. In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle started to circulate on social media along with a warning about an alleged tactic being used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy," or "1 female 1 baby," and that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme received a viral boost when it was posted to actor James Woods' Twitter account: posted   The text read:  A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b) im just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is now how sex traffickers are tagging cars.. please please mothers, fathers, grandparents.. aunts & uncles. Be AWARE! Feel free to share! Wont be tagging my friend for personal reasons. The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have said that they are unaware of any such activity. But before we get to the police statement about this matter, let's take a look at the game of telephone that helped this rumor go viral.  The text of this post states that this happened to a "friend of mine." When we read a little further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger. Not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee  just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post received far wider circulation. And the farther we moved away from the rumor's origins, the muddier the details got. One poster, for instance, informed people that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in this location. post poster When we try to boil down this rumor to its origins, we see that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person claiming that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor doesn't exactly have credible origins.  The local Patch website reported: reported Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports for anything like this," Kelly said. He also said the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities of any information that indicates criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor popped up on social media in July 2021.    AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry but Im educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this!! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!7/27/2021Today around 3:30pm between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, this truck had a black Tahoe stop in front of it. A man got out and began asking the female driver of this truck for directions. She rolled down her window but had her seat belt on and doors locked. As the man approached he punched her in her left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully she was carrying and grabbed her gun. He took off. She called the police and they advised her this mark 1FW on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She was marked somewhere and this man followed and when she was on a road alone, he made a move to take her. Thankfully, she is home with her family tonight. Please be aware of your surroundings. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. Nor was this the first time that this type of baseless warning has gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we wrote about the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were laying down in front of vehicles in order to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor holding that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets.  false claim false rumor false rumor Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, writes that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths when it comes to trafficking: The Polaris Project Myth: Its always or usually a violent crime. Fact: The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as, tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.     Polaris Project.  "Myths, Facts, and Statistics."
  Retrieved 24 August 2020. Wall, Karen.  "Rumor Of Sex Traffickers at Brick Walmart Unfounded, Police Say."
  Patch.  13 August 2020. Updated [Aug. 2, 2021]: July 2021 variant added. On 15 February 2017, the web site ConservativeDailyPost.com published an inaccurate story bearing the headline, "Post-Emergency Report Concludes: CA Governor Directed Critical Dam Funds To Programs For Illegals," and reportingthat a nonexistent post-emergency report found that California governor Jerry Brown spent $25 billion on programs for undocumented immigrants rather than investing in fixing the Oroville Dam, leading to current dangerous conditions in Northern California: Despite warnings about the flood danger posed by the Oroville Dam twelve years ago, flaky California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown ignored the warnings in favor of spending $25 billion per year on illegal immigrants. Now the chickens are coming home to roost as rainstorms later in the week could cause the neglected portion of the dam to dump large amounts of water on downtown Oroville. Brown stands revealed as spending money on unlawful immigrants rather than protecting the more than 20 million farmers and residential consumers the dam provides water to. While it is true that environmental groups have been warning state and federal authorities about structural deficiencies at Oroville Dam since well before Brown took office, the dam and programs for undocumented immigrants are funded from separate budget sources, thus spending on one does not impact the other.Ted Thomas, spokesman for the California Department of Water Resources, told us: Lake Oroville is part of the State Water Project, which is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources. All of the construction, operation, and maintenance costs of the State Water Project are paid by the 29 public water agencies (known as the SWP contractors) that take delivery of water from the project. ConservativeDailyPost.com linked to an article fromtheWashington Times,which quoted conservatives critical of the California governor for failing to address issues with the dam while spending on programs for undocumented people and a high-speed rail project. The article cites others who said President Trump should help repair the dam, instead of building a new wall at the U.S.-Mexico border: Critics of Californias willingness to spend billions of dollars on high-speed rail and services for illegal immigrants were quick to draw parallels to the states failure to invest in the Oroville Dam. The cost of fixing the spillway alone is now $200 million. Charlie Kirk, founder of conservative student group Turning Point USA, fired off a meme Monday saying, California Governor Jerry Brown spends $25 billion per year to support illegal immigrants/I wonder how much Governor Brown spent to maintain the Oroville Dam? Others defended Mr. Brown, pointing out that the emergency spillway had never been used until this year and that the catastrophic rainstorms came as a shock, especially after five years of drought. Still others turned the crisis into an opportunity to blast Mr. Trump, saying he should repair the Oroville Dam instead of building a wall on the southern border. While the article doesn't say where Kirk's meme sourced its "$25 billion" figure, a 2014 study by immigrant reduction proponentsFederation for American Immigration Reform claimed that undocumented immigrants cost the Golden State $25.3 billion annually. The claim is questionable, however, because the group lumps U.S. citizens born to undocumented immigrants in with non-citizen children when estimating the cost of education: study Nearly half of those expenditures ($12.3 billion) result from the costs of K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens  both those illegally in the country and those born in the United States. Another major outlay ($2.1 billion) results from the need to provide supplemental English language instruction to Limited English Proficient students, many of whom are children of illegal aliens. Together, these educational costs are 57.1 percent of total expenditures.   What is true is that environmental experts have been warning officials since at least 2003 about the now-compromised spillway that is threatening to collapse and flood communities below. As early as 2003, Friends of the River, the Sierra Club, and the South Yuba River Citizens League have been warning state and federal officials that the spillway was unsound. In a 2003 letter, the groups wrote: We are concerned that the physical structure of the ungated spillway may not comport well with the exist well with the existing reservoir regulation manual that calls for use of reservoir surcharge space by utilizing the Dam's ungated spillway when appropriate... At present, the ungated spillway at Oroville Dam consists of a spillway lip only  and utilizes a hillside as the project spillway. Utilizing such a spillway has the potential to cause severe damage to the downstream hillside, project facilities, and downstream environments located in the path of the flood release... We do not believe that it is in the Departments best interest to pursue a relicensing strategy that might in practice reduce the effective flood control space at Oroville Dam. Rather, it would seem prudent to seek approval from FERC for modifications to the Dam such as the construction of a spillway below the ungated spillway lip that would allow Dam operators to operate the Dam consistent with the existing and desired flood operation rules without causing significant damages or disruption to project land and facilities. The Washington Post explains: In October 2005, as the Oroville Dam was going through a re-licensing process, the three groups filed a motion urging a federal regulatory agency to require state officials to armor the emergency spillway with concrete so that in the event of extreme rain and flooding, water would not freely cascade down and erode the hillside. The upgrade would have cost millions of dollars and no one wanted to foot the bill, said Ronald Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River, one of the groups that filed the motion. When the dam is overfull, water goes over that weir and down the hillside, taking much of the hillside with it, Stork told The Washington Post. That causes huge amounts of havoc. Theres roads, theres transmission lines, power lines that are potentially in the way of that water going down that auxiliary spillway. Federal officials, however, determined that nothing was wrong and the emergency spillway, which can handle 350,000 cubic feet of water per second, would perform as designed and sediment resulting from erosion would be insignificant, according to a July 2006 memo from John Onderdonk, then a senior civil engineer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Eleven years later, flooding due to mid-February 2017 storms forced nearly 200,000 residents living in the dam's shadow to evacuate their homes. As of 16 February 2017, crews are working to shore up the structure as more heavy rain is expected in the coming week. Stork told us: We were told not to worry our pretty little heads and they just ignored the issue of throwing the hillside into the channel below, sayingthat would never happen. Mother Nature just demonstrated they were incorrect. Capshaw, Ron."Post-Emergency Report Concludes: CA Governor Directed Critical Dam Funds To Programs For Illegals."
The Conservative Daily Post.15 February 2017. Richardson, Valerie."California Spent on High-Speed Rail and Illegal Immigrants, but Ignored Oroville Dam."
The Washington Times.13 February 2017. Martin, Jack."The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on California Taxpayers."
Federation for American Immigration Reform.June 2014. Guerra, Kristine."The Government Was Warned That the Oroville Dam Emergency Spillway Was Unsafe. It Didnt Listen."
The Washington Post.14 February 2017. Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013 Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesnt mean the IRS isnt going to come after your earnings. Thats because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities.  The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner.  publications joked running out of time  And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income  categorized as self-employment activity  required to be reported to the federal tax agency.  Publication 17 general rules  Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 the IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items so long as the person returns them to the person they were stolen from in the first place.   Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, notes that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and notes that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in the Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. Its not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, its taxable.  If you find and keep property that doesnt belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), its taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year its your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. Its not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022.  Sources Dolan, Debra. Time Is Running out to Return Stolen Goods to Avoid Paying Taxes on Them. Https://Www.Wdbj7.Com, https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/12/29/time-is-running-out-return-stolen-goods-avoid-paying-taxes-them/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. IRS Asks That Criminals Provide Its Cut of Stolen Property, Illegal Income. KXXV, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/irs-asks-that-criminals-provide-its-cut-of-stolen-property-illegal-income. Publication 17 (2021), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Stole Something? IRS Says Stolen Property and Bribes Must Be Reported as Income. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021.