Does the CDC operate as a 'Nonprofit Corporation' that is privately owned?
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
For years, internet users have shared a fake quote that was attributed to Anne Frank that said, "Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness." Anne Frank Frank became a famous and important historical figure after her death in early 1945 for writing a series of works, most famously her diary, while she hid from Nazis during World War II. death a series of works  A statue of Anne Frank in Amsterdam, November 8, 1963. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)  A Google search showed results for the fake candle quote with Frank's name on various websites, including AZQuotes, Goodreads, QuoteFancy, and QuotePark. AZQuotes Goodreads QuoteFancy QuotePark We also found a seemingly endless wall of quote memes on Google Images:  Courtesy: Google Images  According to Google Books, the quote has been printed and attributed to Frank in numerous works, the first of which appeared to be published no earlier than 2013. This would be a red flag in the case of any purported decades-old quote. According to Google Books Facebook was littered with the fake quote, including several posts made in early January 2022, the same time when this fact check was first published. was littered with the fake quote several posts made in early January 2022 In 2018, "Harry Potter" author J. K. Rowling tweeted the fake Frank candle quote: tweeted  Courtesy: @jk_rowling/Twitter  The official Twitter account for the country of Israel once tweeted it: tweeted  Courtesy: @Israel/Twitter  In fact, the fake candle quote spread so much across the internet that even the U.S.-based Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect once accidentally shared it by mistake: Anne Frank Center shared  Courtesy: @AnneFrankCenter/Twitter  This fact check does not serve to fault any of the institutions that are dedicated to educating the world about Frank's life and the history of the Holocaust. Rather, perhaps the debunking of fake quotes such as this one could potentially inspire readers to share more of the genuine passages from her writing. Holocaust Anne Frank Fonds is a foundation that was started by Anne's father, Otto Frank. Before his death in 1980, he designated it as his "universal heir and legal successor." Anne Frank Fonds A spokesperson for the foundation confirmed to us that the candle quote was fake and that there was no record of Frank ever having said the words, "Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness." We also did not find any trace of the quote in Frank's works, nor did we find if it had been misattributed from a different author. The spokesperson said that fake quotes are "an ongoing battle" and that "new false quotes tend to pop up every so often."  Photographs of Anne Frank are on display at the Jewish Museum in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by STR / AFP via Getty Images)  We previously debunked another fake Frank quote that read, "Dead people receive more flowers than the living ones because regret is stronger than gratitude." There's no evidence that she ever said these words. debunked On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted   survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented. Phishing bait:  Billing statements from PG&E and Atmos Energy. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Comment: I received 2 emails like this.  I don't have an account with PGE,nor do I use gas.  I didn't click, just in case that's how they get theirinfo.  Any insight will be appreciated.  PG&E ENERGY STATEMENT     Account No: 441401665-1Statement Date: 01/07/2014Due Date: 02/01/2014  Your Account Summary Amount Due on Previous Statement          $344.70Payment(s) Recieved Since Last Statement      0  Previous Unpaid Balance                   $344.70  Current Electric Charges                   $165.20Current Gas Charges                          49.20  To view your most recent bill, please click here. You must log-in to youraccount or register for an online account to view your statement. Total Amount Due BY 02/01/2014 $559.70 Origins:  In January 2014, Internet users began receiving messages like the one reproduced above that purported to be energy statements (i.e., utility bills) from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).  Such messages included instructions for the recipients to follow a hyperlink or open an attachment in order to view their statements and/or register for an online account.  These messages were intended to lure recipients, concerned about receiving unexpected bills, into attempting to view the referenced statements   a process which would lead them not to viewing a document but into launching an executable file.  Similar messages have been sent out in the name of Atmos Energy as well, and that company has posted a warning on their web site and advised customers that: warning As an Atmos Energy e-Bill customer you are accustomed to receiving yourmonthly bill notice by email. We would like to inform you of a widespreademail scam which portrays a bogus Atmos Energy bill. The emails have beensent to individuals nationwide including Atmos Energy customers. The "phishing" message references a fake account number and contains linksto fraudulant websites. The email provides links to mislead you inbelieving you are going to view your bill, learn more about natural gas orview bill inserts. Actually, the links lead you to a compromised websitethat hides malware. We are asking anyone who receives that deceptive emailto delete it immediately and do not click on any links. PG&E has also posted a warning on their site advising consumers to "Please be alert to an email scam using PG&E's name," with a link to an article about confirming contact from PG&E: warning Individuals and companies are posing as PG&E employees or contractors to gain access to your account information or entry into your home. Here are ways to protect your home or business. You should always ask to see identification before allowing anyone claiming to be a PG&E representative inside their home. PG&E employees always carry their identification and are always willing to show it to you. If a person claiming to be a PG&E employee has identification and you still feel uncomfortable, call PG&E's customer service line at 1-800-PGE-5000 to verify an appointment and/or PG&E's presence in the community. If you have an appointment with PG&E, you will receive an automated call back within 48 hours prior to a scheduled visit, or a personal call from a PG&E service representative prior to a scheduled visit. If you have concerns about the legitimacy of a call you have received about a past due bill, a service request or a request for personal information, call PG&E immediately at 1-800-743-5000. PG&E's Credit Department will never ask for personal information, a credit card number or a gift card number over the phone. If you have received such a phone call and provided credit card or checking account information should report it immediately to the credit card company or bank and law enforcement.    Last updated:  9 January 2014 As Texas struggled with statewide rolling blackouts and much of the United States experienced a potent arctic storm with frigid temperatures and unprecedented ice and snow in February 2021, social media users speculated that frozen wind turbines in Texas played a major role in power outages there (false). And across the world, others argued that Germany's renewable energy sources, wind and solar, failed that country, requiring greater output from nuclear and coal production to make up the difference. experienced unprecedented ice and snow false The allegation stemmed from an article published by Stop These Things (STT), an anti-wind website that the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch said promotes anecdotes and pseudoscience intended to cast doubt on the effectiveness of wind energy. The STT report cited a pseudoscientific blog post published by NoTricksZone on Jan. 28, 2021, by Pierre Goselin titled, Berlin on the Brink! Winter Blackouts Loom As Coal Plants Run At 100% Capacity, Struggle to Keep Lights On. Similar claims were shared on Reddit and other publications, including World News Era. STT said blog post Jan. 28, 2021 Berlin on the Brink! Winter Blackouts Loom As Coal Plants Run At 100% Capacity, Struggle to Keep Lights On Reddit World News Era While it is true that solar panels and wind turbines can suffer during periods of extreme cold and high snow pilings, it is not accurate to say that Germany experienced a total collapse of power. It is also inaccurate to say that coal and nuclear power were required to step up to make up the difference. In particular, NoTricksZone cited a video produced by German national broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB) that had reportedly been taken down by the channel but was reuploaded to YouTube by wind energy protest group Vernunftkraft.du. NoTricksZone said that in the video, Daniel Bartig, a mechanic at the LEAG Lausitz power plant, said that he was skeptical that green energy can do the job and that the greatest share of power is currently coming from coal. Harald Schwarz, professor of power distribution at the University of Cottbus, said that he is very skeptical of wind and solar energy doing the job: YouTube With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, its between 0 and 2 or 3 percent  that is de facto zero. You can see it in many diagrams that we have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV. Especially this time for example  there is no wind and PV, and there are often times when the wind is very miniscule. These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and weve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion. While our emails to RBB, Schwarz and the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy went unanswered, an investigation into Germanys power grid in early 2021 revealed that such claims were largely unfounded. Germany is heralded as a leader in wind and solar power. In 2013, leaders launched Energiewende, a movement to shift the power grid to a more efficient and carbon-neutral system, eliminate electricity generated from nuclear by 2022, and fully phase out coal by 2038. And movements in early 2021 continued a shift from nuclear, as well as coal and oil, to a more diversified system. As of December 2019, about 12% of Germanys electricity came from nuclear energy produced at seven reactors, while over 40% of electricity came from coal, according to the World Nuclear Association, an international organization that promotes nuclear power. By and large, coal was the largest source of power generation in 2019, according to a 2020 report published by the International Energy Agency. World Nuclear Association International Energy Agency Those numbers shifted slightly in 2020, according to preliminary data published by the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), which found that 44.6% of energy sourced in Germany in 2020 was from renewables  nearly a quarter of which was produced by onshore and offshore wind, and 8.9% of which was solar, reported Clean Energy Wire. Clean Energy Wire   But other energy sources still hold a share in that total. Natural gas made up 16.2%, while nuclear clocked in around 11.4%, and hard coal 7.5%, so its not out of the ordinary for Germany to be getting its energy from coal and nuclear sources, particularly in the winter. The largest issue with Germanys power grid, according to the IEA, is that most of the wind capacity is located in the northern region whereas most of the demand is in urban regions to the south  and transporting wind power can be a difficult and arduous task. According to STT report, Germanys millions of solar panels are blanketed in snow and ice and were thus rendered useless: So much for the transition to an all wind and sun powered future  aka the Energiewende. Despite being the object of consternation and much vilification over the last 20 years, Germanys coal-fired plants are now being appreciated for what they are: truly meaningful power generation sources, available on demand, whatever the weather. With a Nationwide blackout a heartbeat away, the German obsession with unreliable wind and solar is like a time bomb set to explode. It is true that solar panels require sunlight to produce energy and that being covered in snow can hamper their efficiency, but that doesnt mean that they are rendered useless. Most solar panels are tilted at an angle, so snow will slide off on its own. And if it doesnt, caretakers will simply remove the snow without damaging the panels, according to the solar industry company Energy Sage. Cold, sunny weather is actually good for panels. Winter months are actually good for solar energy production, as long as your panels arent covered by snow. Like most electronics, solar panels function more efficiently in cold conditions than in hot, wrote the solar industry experts. This means that your panels will produce more power for each precious hour of sunshine during the short days of winter. wrote And according to the U.S. Department of Energy, a little snow has little impact on solar panels. While heavy snow can limit the amount of energy produced, light is still able to move through the snow  even when panels are completely covered by snow, they can still generate energy. U.S. Department of Energy The biggest threat to solar panels from heavy snowfall is weight, which can put stress on the delicate system and photovoltaic panels, which are responsible for generating electricity via sunlight. The TSS report also claimed that freezing weather has halted 30,000 wind turbines, which could in part be true. Turbines use wind to make electricity when it rotates the blades around a rotor, which spins a generator to create electricity. But when there is an accumulation of ice on these blades, an increased load can reduce power and damage the blades. spins Cold weather can also shut down equipment, and in places that are ill-equipped for chilly temperatures, this can slow down energy production. But NoTricksZone reported that 30,000 wind turbines in Germany were largely out of operation, and in a world 100% reliant on green energies, this would mean near 100% darkness at home. Snopes did not find evidence to confirm that tens of thousands of turbines were out of operation; neither is it true that Germany is fully dependent on green energies  yet. In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was "the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor" re-emerged social media   The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase "First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor": 2017 The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called "strongman politics," whereby "those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning." He also criticized "far-right parties" with a platform of "protectionism and closed borders" as well as "barely-hidden racial nationalism." perceived Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a "symptom, not a cause" of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the "wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage." Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented "one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for." speech Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer "There is no military victory here" and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: took aim efforts George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: reported Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress "for his demise or things that weren't going right." "He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it," Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. "I think America is a little tired of it." During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having "the nerve" to blame the GOP for "his own failures," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettereported: reported Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. "He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress," the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: reported Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. "I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess," Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. "But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold." Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to "accept his responsibilities as president," the New York Times reported: New York Times Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, "we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors" ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan "my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency." "My offer still stands," Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. "When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him." At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were "irresponsible and ill-advised" and that his Republican successor had made "radical" and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: reported Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: "Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth" ... "It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised," he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: interview "Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion," Ford said. "It's going out like a mouse" ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: negotiations crisis reported "The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter," Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. "The president blew it." Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. "He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible." Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is "the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor" is false. Wintour, Patrick.  "Obama Criticises 'Strongman Politics' in Coded Attack on Trump." 
  The Guardian.  17 July 2018. Reuters.  "Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Iraq." 
  19 July 2007. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Jeff Zeleny.  "Clash Over Iraq Becomes Bitter Between Bush and Congress." 
  The New York Times.  12 July 2007. Zizzo, David.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton During Stop in City." 
  The Daily Oklahoman.  5 November 1994. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton." 
  5 November 1994. Associated Press.  "Bush Criticizes Clinton, But Says Scandal Will Fade." 
  The Atlanta Constitution   25 January 1999. Clymer, Adam.  "Carter Says Reagan Has Failed to Accept His Responsibilities." 
  The New York Times.  1 October 1982. Pippert, Wesley G.  "Jimmy Carter Criticized President Reagan Wednesday for Making 'Radical'..." 
  United Press International.  10 November 1982. Cannon, Lou.  "Ford Criticizes Carter Economics." 
  The Tampa Bay Times.  17 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Policy." 
  The [Uniontown] Evening Standard.  8 April 1977. Associated Press.  "Ford Criticizes Carter's Economic Policies." 
  The [Staunton] News Leader.  11 October 1979. Carrol, Jan.  "Former President Ford Criticizes Carter for 'Flip-Flopping' Policies." 
  The [Lousiville] Courier-Journal.  27 June 1980. Seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, Republican nominee Donna Campbell of Columbus paints him as a career politician with some questionable positions. In an ad posted online Oct. 19, the narrator compares Doggett and Campbell, an emergency room doctor. They disagree on ObamaCare: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says repeal. Stimulus spending: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says it's a waste of money. Cap and trade: Doggett voted yes, Campbell says job killer. We're not weighing in on whether the stimulus was a waste of money, or if cap and trade is a job killer. But since earlier this month we ratedTrueDoggett's statement that he voted against big bank bailouts, we were curious whether Campbell accurately recapped his votes on other high-dollar issues. Amanda Tyler, Doggett's campaign manager, told us by e-mail that Doggett voted for each piece of legislation, though the campaign has reservations about the visuals in Campbell's ad; for example, she said, a shot of a foreclosure sign doesn't make sense in connection with his vote for stimulus aid. Let's review Doggett's votes one at a time. Health care On Nov. 7, 2009, the U.S. House voted on its version of health care legislation in a 220-215 vote. Doggett joined 218 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, in passing the legislation. On March 21, 2010 , Doggett voted for legislation reconciling Senate and House versions of the proposal. The compromise passed 220-211, with no Republicans in support. Doggett said in a floor speech with this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured. We later rated that statement asTrue. Stimulus On Jan. 28, 2009, the House passed the $819 billion economic recovery bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Doggett voted aye. One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by promoting educational opportunity, he said on the House floor the day before. $13.5 billion of targeted tax relief to help young people and not-so young people attend college. Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify for this assistance. But because we provided a refundable tax credit, we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid. We asked Campbell's campaign why it showed an image of foreclosure sign while describing Doggett's vote for the stimulus legislation. Mike Asmus, Campbell's campaign manager, told us the stimulus spending Lloyd Doggett has voted for has prolonged the narrative of economic malaise, running from joblessness to foreclosure and beyond. Cap and trade Doggett voted for a cap-and-trade measure aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. With Doggett's vote, that proposal cleared the House 219-212 on June 26, 2009, though Doggett also aired objections about the measure being too soft, saying the plan stripped too much oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency and encouraged new coal-fired plants. I struggled deeply about whether to support this flawed bill, but I finally determined that voting for it was my best hope for making it better, he said on the floor that day. I've been listening to the debate  not so much to those who support a bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the Flat Earth Society and the climate-change deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge. Tyler also told us that Doggett hoped to improve the bill by being tapped to serve as a House member of a possible House-Senate conference committee on the plan. That panel never was named; the House-approved bill stalled in the Senate. Our vote? The ad's imagery might be objectionable (at least to Doggett). He still gave his 'aye' for all the legislation cited by Campbell. We rate her statement True. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325