Says Marco Rubio is proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program in tax credits and $1 trillion in new military spending.
The wordconservativewas uttered 18 times during the Fox Business News Republican presidential debate on Nov. 10, 2015. The first 17 references made in the Milwaukee Theatre were done with particular emphasis by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. (Ohio Gov. John Kasich used the word once.) Paul called himself the only fiscal conservative among the eight candidates on stage -- and made a point to contrast himself with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in one of the more contentious exchanges of the night. Rubio had just defended his proposal to increase a child tax credit when Paul interjected. We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We're not talking about giving people back their tax money. He's talking about giving people money they didn't pay. It's a welfare transfer payment,Paul saidof Rubios tax credit plan. So, here's what we have. Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments -- a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative. Defending the tax credit and his defense spending proposals, Rubio said the family is the most important institution in society and the world is a stronger and a better place when the United States is the strongest military power in the world. But is Rubio proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending? And $1 trillion over what period of time? Tax credit Rubiostax planincludes creating a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child. It is meant to offset income and payroll taxes and is considerably larger than the $1,000 credit that is currently available. Refundabletax credits help people at the lower end of the income scale, in that people who are too poor to pay any income tax can get money back from the government. Pauls campaign referred us to a March 2015analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Foundation of a tax plan proposed in the Senate by Rubio and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. That analysis estimated the credit would result in a loss of tax revenue of about $170 billion per year. Thats the equivalent of $1.7 trillion over 10 years -- 10 years being a common time frame for federal budget planning. But its worth noting that Paul didnt say 10 years in making his claim. Well note that, unlike the original Rubio-Lee plan, Rubio as a candidate isproposingthat the credit would be phased out at higher income levels --  beginning at $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a family. That would mean the lost revenue would be something less than $1.7 trillion over 10 years, but still well above $1 trillion, saidKyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank. Thats because relatively few people at the higher incomes have children and would be eligible for the tax credits, he told us. In other words, the tax credit is expensive, Pomerlau said, because its large and nearly universal for families. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of theUrban InstituteandBrookings Institution, also did anestimateof the original tax credit proposal and came up with a figure similar to that of the Tax Foundation -- an estimated loss of nearly $1.58 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years. Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us the center hasn't analyzed Rubio's current proposal. But he said a loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years is a fair estimate. Pauls characterization of Rubios tax credit as welfare is a stretch, however. Eleanor May, Pauls campaign spokeswoman, said giving people a refundable credit -- meaning, giving them more than they paid is a welfare transfer payment from one group of people to another. But as our colleagues at PunditFactnoted, even the most expansive definition of welfare --  including the cash program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), traditional food stamps, Medicaid and the food program called Women, Infants and Children -- doesnt include tax credits. Rubio, whose campaign did not respond to our requests for this article, noted in the debate that everyone who works pays the payroll tax. Defense spending Rubio has backed more defense spending since at least March 2015, when he and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a budget amendment to increase the Pentagons budget. At the time, Rubio argued that adjusted for inflation, defense spending had declined by 21 percent since 2010 -- a claim PolitiFact National ratedMostly True. Rubios amendment proposed restoring defense spending levels to what had been proposed in the spring of 2011, for fiscal 2012 going forward, by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates proposal was prior to spending limits that were imposed by theBudget Control Actof 2011, which became law in the summer of 2011. Returning to the so-called 2012 proposed spending levels would add $1 trillion in defense spending over 10 years,Benjamin Friedman, a defense research fellow at the liberatrian Cato Institute, told us. That is also the estimate made in a July 2015reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The morning after the Milwaukee debate, Rubio was asked in a Fox News interview: So, where are you going to get the trillion dollars from that Rand Paul says we shouldnt be spending? Rubio didnt address the figure, saying: First of all, before we fund anything, the federal government should be fully funding national security. But he has made references to the $1 trillion cost in the past. In a September 2014speech, Rubio said he agreed with a recommendation by the bipartisan National Defense Panel to return to the 2012-level spending, which we are on track to be around $1 trillion short of through fiscal year 2022. And on his campaign website, Rubiosayshe would restore defense spending to the 2012 level, and begin to undo the damage caused by $1 trillion in indiscriminate defense cuts. Our rating Paul said Rubio is proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending. Its estimated that over 10 years, a common time frame for federal budget planning, Rubios child tax credit would result in the loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue; and his plan to reverse declines in Pentagon spending would cost $1 trillion. But its a stretch to call the tax credit welfare and in making his claim, Paul didnt state that the $1 trillion costs would be over 10 years. We rate Pauls statement Mostly True. More debate claims Go herefor PolitiFact National's fact checks on statements made during the Milwaukee debate. And herefor PolitiFact Wisconsin's night-of review of the debate.
Claim:  Photographs show businesses that posted "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" signs. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  Skewering a political candidate with an apropos comment is a time-honored way of making a point. Of late, we're seeing this tradition expand into the online world of blogs and message boards but also into the offline world via signage on businesses. The sign pictured above was displayed outside the Mandeville, Louisiana, office of State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg.  The sign actually bore different legends on each side, one side displaying the "chicken" message shown above and the other side referencing an apocryphal quote attributed to Senator Obama about his hoping to change "the greatest nation in the history of the world": change  A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg's office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm's policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns. Both signs are reminiscent of the KFC offering lampooning Senator Hillary Clinton. KFC offering However, although this particular insurance vendor posted the "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" billboard, he most certainly wasn't the first to get off this zinger. That withering assessment has been leveled at numerous U.S. and Canadian politicians over the years: [Moseley, October 2004] If you are on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, a baby-boomer, unemployed, a minority, parent with school-aged children, a college student, without medical insurance, balancing your personal budget, not a CEO, purchasing gasoline, wanting clean air and water, a 401-K owner or earn less than $200,000 per year, then voting for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Carville, January 2003] The previous highest-ranking black official was Mr. JC Watts from Oklahoma. Do you know what his own father said? A black person voting for a Republican would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Charleston Daily Mail, October 1996] Any hardworking person who votes Republican is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Rogers, March 1996] When workers voted for Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario, 1995-2002], it was like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.  [United Press International, October 1984] A working man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.  [Waters, November 1982] For all that, Brinkley got off the evening's snappiest line: "Auto workers voting for Republicans this year are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Feinstein, October 1982] [Michael] Barnes told the gathering of about 150 union leaders and members that "for a working man or woman in this country to vote Republican in 1982 would be a like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."  [Sheppard, October 1978] Mr. [Steven] Langdon [NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre riding] told an audience that for Ottawa Centre to vote Tory [Progressive Conservative] is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. One of Bud Gregg's messages inspired a realtor in Texas to post the same sentiment on a sign outside his business:  Bob Costilow, the owner of Bob Costilow Realtors in Nederland, Texas, said he was appalled by the capital gains tax portion of Senator Obama's tax plan. "I saw it (i.e., the "chicken" saying) in an e-mail on a sign put up by a State Farm agent in Mandeville, Louisiana," he said. "I loved it. I have gotten some calls about it, and some of them were even congratulatory in nature." Barbara "inspiration point" Mikkelson Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. Update:   An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject.  FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. verified Last updated:  10 April 2009    Feinstein, John.  "Mondale Is Democrats' Heavy Artillery in Md."   The Washington Post.  20 October 1982  (p. A20).    Ferraro, Thomas.  "Washington News."   United Press International.  11 October 1984.    Hayes, Greg.  "Realtor's Expression of Political Opinion Doesn't Set Well with Passerby."   Beaumont Enterprise.  17 July 2008.    Heathcock, Jennifer.  "Political Message Strikes Chord with Some Southeast Texans."   KFDM-TV [Beaumont, TX].  23 July 2008.    Kotz, Pete.  "The Enemy Within."   Cleveland Scene.  3 March 2004.    Moseley, Don.  "Letter: Vote for Colonel Sanders."   Farmington Daily Times.  26 October 2004  (p. A9).    Rogers, Linda.  "Stop Tearing Each Other Down."   The Toronto Star.  8 March 1996  (p. A20).    Sheppard, Robert.  "Anti-Liberal Feelings Haunt Mackasey."   The Globe and Mail.  7 October 1978.    Waters, Harry.  "Winning the Viewers' Votes."   Newsweek.  15 November 1982  (p. 55).    Charleston Daily Mail.  "Readers' Vent Line."   11 October 1996  (p. D5). In July 2021, as the pandemic-delayed 2020 Olympic games approached, an interesting tidbit about basketball, Lithuania, and the 1960s psychedelic rock band the Grateful Dead started to circulate on social media. A viral Reddit post claimed that "after the breakup of the USSR, the Lithuanian basketball team couldn't afford to participate in the 1992 Olympics, so the Grateful Dead funded the team's expenses and sent a box of tie-dyed outfits in Lithuania's national colours. They went on to win bronze."  claimed This post is generally accurate. The Grateful Dead really did sponsor Lithuania's men's basketball team, and they did provide the team with tie-dyed shirts bearing the country's national colors (yellow, green, and red), and a "Skullman" logo designed by Greg Speirs, which can be seen above. Our one quibble with this claim is that the band was not the team's sole source of funding. While the Grateful Dead did provide the team some financial support (one report states that the band wrote a $5,000 check), the band's main contribution was that it allowed the team to sell special Grateful Dead merchandise, which proved massively popular with fans at the 1992 Olympic Games.  "Skullman" logo Greg Speirs Here's a newspaper clipping from 1992 about the popularity of these shirts. According to Grateful Dead spokesman Dennis McNally, some 20,000 shirts sold in the first week. A third of the money raised went to the Lithuanian Olympic Committee, and the band got "nothing more than a good time."  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com The Grateful Dead's connection with the Lithuanian basketball team started in 1992 when Sarunas Marciulionis, the team's star guard, and scout Donnie Nelson showed up at a garage in San Francisco to hear the band play. The team, which would be competing in its first Olympic games since the country declared independence from the Soviet Union a few years earlier, was seeking sponsors to fund their trip to Barcelona.  Here's an excerpt from an article published on NBCOlympics.com in 2012 (archived here): NBCOlympics.com On a cold and windy Bay Area winter day 20 years ago, Sarunas Marciulionis and Donnie Nelson, a starting guard and a scout, respectively, for the Golden State Warriors, knocked uncertainly on the door of a nondescript garage in San Francisco. The Grateful Dead is in here? Nelson thought to himself. Somebody said to enter, and so they did, metaphorical hats in hand, taking in the sights and, more vividly, the smells. "Well, there was a little pot going on," Nelson recalls today. "The Dead were trying out Beatles covers, doing stuff like 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Hey Jude,' but they were just kind of working through things and sounding kind of nasally. Sarunas pulls me aside and says, 'Donnie, no way these guys are famous. They're terrible.'" Nelson shakes his head and smiles. "I always think back and wonder what it would be like if someone caught that scene today -- Sarunas in the Dead pot garage." The Dead had heard about the Marciulionis-Nelson crusade to raise money to enable Lithuania, Marciulionis's native land, to try to qualify for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. "You're all about liberty and freedom and, man, we're all about that, too, so we dig what you guys are doing," said Jerry Garcia, the Dead's leader. That's a paraphrase but, if you've ever heard Jerry (who died in 1995), it's pretty close. NBC reported that the band ended up writing the team a check for $5,000. More importantly, the band gave the team a license to use and sell special Olympics-Grateful Dead merchandise. These items were a major hit and helped the team raise funds that were then used to fund their participation in the 1996 Olympics.  Strong anti-Soviet reaction from the West helped force a treaty, but by the time Marciulionis decided that he wanted to field a team, the nation was nearly bankrupt. He donated some of the money from his $1.28 million Golden State contract, and, with the help of Nelson, whom he had tapped to be Lithuania's assistant coach, set out to raise the rest. Getting the Dead was a major coup. The band wrote a check for $5,000 but more importantly granted Lithuania the rights to sell a Dead t-shirt, a stoned-out psychedelic masterpiece splashed with Lithuania's national colors of green, red, and yellow and anchored by the Dead's skeleton symbol. Purely from a fund-raising perspective, sales of the t-shirt had more to do with the 1996 Olympics; it financed most of Lithuania's participation in the Atlanta Games. But the t-shirt became the hit of the '92 Games, more treasured than any of the merchandise bearing the likeness of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, the stalwarts of the United States Dream Team. The shirt kept Lithuania in the news, told the story of its heroic struggle for freedom, its battle to get to Barcelona (it earned a spot through the European Olympic qualifier) and its quest for a medal. For many American basketball fans, the 1992 Olympics are probably remembered for the dominant play of the "Dream Team," the American Olympic team that featured superstars such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird. But the Lithuanian team made its mark as well. In 2012, a documentary was released entitled "The Other Dream Team," which followed Arvydas Sabonis and arnas Mariulionis on their somewhat psychedelic journey to a bronze medal.   Updated [1 September 2021]: Updated to credit designer of Skullman logo. For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987. Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family. The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.) occupation Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee: testify Abu Nidal Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ... "Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna"  that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded  "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor. When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout. Abu Nidal himself, quoted in Der Spiegel, "Between America and us, there exists a war to the death. In the coming months and years, Americans will be thinking about us." "For sheer viciousness, Abu Nidal has few rivals in the underworld of terrorism." Newseek. Our own State Department, and we have copies of these that we can make available for insertion in the record, but the State Department summary on Abu Nidal, not exactly an overstatement, notes that his followers, who number an estimated 500, have killed as many as 181 persons, and wounded more than 200, in two years. Abu Nidal does not deny these things. We also have an exhibit that we can provide for you that shows what Abu Nidal did in the Christmas Massacres. One of the people killed in the Christmas Massacre  and I do not wish to overdramatize this  but the Abu Nidal terrorists in Rome who blasted the 11-year-old American Natasha Simpson to her knees, deliberately zeroed in and fired an extra burst at her head just in case. I want you to know that I'd be more than willing ... to meet Abu Nidal on equal terms anywhere in the world. There's an even deal for him. OK? But I am not willing to have my wife and my four children meet Abu Nidal or his organization on his terms. To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi: Mohmmar Qadaffi In February 1987, Muammar Ghadaffi ordered his thugs to carry out a threat made against me in 1986. Thankfully, the FBI intercepted the well-armed perpetrators on the way to our home, and my family and I were sequestered for a time on a military base. The orders from Tripoli were delivered to a terrorist cell in Virginia  at the offices of The People's Committee for Libyan Students. So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation: FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS  NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS,OLIVER L. NORTH Variations:  One variant of this item concluded with the statement "The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than ... Al Gore." Senator Al Gore of Tennessee was not a member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and therefore did not take part in the questioning of any witnesses before the Committee. Additional information:    Fisk, Robert.  "Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace."
  The [London] Independent.  6 December 1993  (p. 10). Fritz, Sara and Karen Tumulty.  "North's Attempt at Cover-Up Is Told."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 June 1987  (p. A1). Ibrahim, Youssef.  "Saudi Stripped of Citizenship for Funding Fundamentalists."
  The [London] Guardian.  11 April 1994  (p. 8). North, Oliver.  "Tackling Terrorism."
  TownHall.com.  9 June 2000. Tackling Terrorism North, Oliver L.
 Under Fire: An American Story.  New York: HarperCollins, 1992  (pp. 341-344). Pincus, Walter.  "North Says He and His Superiors Lied About Contra Aid."
  The Washington Post.  9 July 1987  (p. A1). FACT CHECK: Are musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce attempting to buy up the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use?  Claim:  Musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce are attempting to buy the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use.    Origins: On 7 July 2015 the web site Newswatch33 published an article titled "Jay-Z and Beyonce Attempt to Buy Rights to Confederate Flag to Prevent Further Use," which reported that:  article According to Ralph Hammerstein, an attorney representing Shawn Jay-Z Carter and Beyonce Knowles-Carter, the couple is attempting to purchase rights to the Confederate flag to prevent further use of the flag on merchandise. According to Hammerstein, the couple is in the works of purchasing all resell rights to the confederate flag. My clients are adamant about purchasing the rights to the Rebel Confederate flag. They have expressed deep concern regarding the flag and how it is tearing apart our nation. Mr. and Mrs. Carter wants to assist in the abolishment of the flag by purchasing the resell rights to the Confederate flag. If my clients are successful, purchasing the rights would mean that anyone who wants to produce merchandise using the Confederate flag would have to get permission from Mr. and Mrs. Carter. My clients have expressed that they are not looking to profit from the use of the flag but rather prevent any further use of the flag on merchandise, according to Hammerstein. This story was nothing more than yet another bit of fake news from NewsWatch33, a web site that emerged on social media just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site was shuttered (possibly as part of a plot to skirt Facebook's crackdown on fake news articles). Before publishing the above-linked article, the site agitated Facebook and Twitter users by fabricating tales about a white supremacist group that supposedly raised $4 million for the defense of Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof and about a girl who was supposedly electrocuted by iPhone ear buds. NewsWatch28 crackdown $4 million electrocuted This story echoed other (fictional) urban legends about prominent entertainment figures attempting to buy up the rights to cultural symbols associated with racism in order the keep them out of the public view, such as one about comedian Bill Cosby's supposedly having purchased the rights to the Our Gang/Little Rascals film shorts, or CNN founder Ted Turner's allegedly having snared the rights to The Dukes of Hazzard television series  both with the intent of withholding them from any future broadcasting airings. Our Gang/Little Rascals In this case, however, the rights to the symbol in question could not be bought up by any party, as no one holds a legitimate trademark to the design of the Confederate flag. trademark Last updated:  8July 2015 Originally published: 8July 2015 Claim:  The Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit settlement paid out more than $1.25 billion, much of it to fraudulent claimants.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2011] In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997. The case was entitled "Pigford vs. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment:  In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford". The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion.  This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers had now swollen, in a class action suit, to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There was only one teensy problem: The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!!  According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!! Oops!! Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?? Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network", but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action -  Shirley Sherrod. Oops again!! Yes, folks it appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the history of the United States    a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting... Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in thisrace fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of  "Pigford vs. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.But....in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.. Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official,  American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. Origins:  Pigford v. Glickman was a lawsuit filed by Timothy Pigford in 1997 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), naming Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman as the defendant.  Pigford, who was initially joined by an additional 400 plaintiffs (the case eventually expanded into class action lawsuit representing thousands of farmers), maintained that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race in determining how to allocate various government support loans, disaster payments, and other financial assistance to farmers and had failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints of this nature from 1983 to 1997: Litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination  against African American farmers began inAugust 1997 with two suits brought by black farmers, Pigford v. Glickman and Brewington v. Glickman, but its origins go back much further. For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not receiving fair  treatment when they applied to local county  committees (which make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring. Moreover, many claimed that the USDA was not responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency backlog of unresolved complaints began to build after the USDA's Civil Rights Office was closed in 1983.  According to [a USDA] commissioned study, few appeals were made by minority complainants because of the slowness of the process, the lack of confidence in the decision makers, the lack of knowledge about the rules, and the significant bureaucracy involved in the process. Other findings showed that (1) the largest USDA loans (top 1%) went to corporations (65%) and white male farmers (25%); (2) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25%) less than those given towhite males; and (3) 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers. The study reported that the reasons for discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not be easily determined due to "gross deficiencies" in USDA data collection and handling. Under a consent decree that consolidated and settled the Pigford and Brewington cases, any African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believed that he or she was  discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997, was eligible to receive a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.  As of January 2011, a total of $769,400,000 had been paid out 15,388 claimants. total In response to claims that a large number of applicants were not fairly considered because, due to a lack of notice, they filed late and were denied review, Republican Senators George Allen and Charles Grassley introduced unsuccessful Congressional bills (in 2006 and 2007, respectively) to provide a mechanism for these applicants to have their claims considered.  Finally, in January 2008 several members of Congress (one of whom was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois) urged the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to include in an upcoming farm bill a provision allowing "certain claimants who submitted late-filing requests under Pigford v. Glickman consent decree opportunity to receive determinations of their claims on their merits."  These additional claims ultimately resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement: George Allen Charles Grassley urged farm bill Due to concerns about the large number of applicants who did not obtain a determination on the merits of their claims under the original Pigford settlement, Congress included a provision in the 2008 farm bill that permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. This provision did not reopen the previous Pigford litigation, but rather provided such farmers with a new right to sue. Ultimately, 11  separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of over 25,000 black farmers, and these claims were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II). On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. In response to claims that the number of applicants in the Pigford cases exceeded the number of black farmers enumerated by census information, the Congressional Research Service reported that: Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators.   These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who areactually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential Pigford II claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.  In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or Pigford II. For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or Pigford II, but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 Track A claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements. In April 2013, the New York Times reported that the latter settlement was agreed to despite substantial objections from those who maintained that there was no credible basis for it, and that the process for compensation was wide open to fraudulent claims: The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections  until now undisclosed  of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal  the $50,000 payouts to black farmers  had proved a magnet for fraud. The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion. From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination. Shirley Sherrod was the USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development who was forced to resign in July 2010 after video excerpts from her address to a March 2010 NAACP event were posted on the Internet, excerpts which supposedly caught her describing how she discriminated against a white farmer who sought her help in 1986 when his farm was about to be foreclosed on.  However,  a review of the unedited video in its full context revealed that Sherrod said she had in fact extended help to the farmer in question: In the heart of a farm community that still favored whites over blacks, with the USDA known as the "last plantation," Sherrod was tasked with helping Eloise and Roger Spooner save their farm. As she recounted many years later in a now widely viewed speech, Sherrod, by then working at a nonprofit organization that assisted farmers in danger of losing their farms, did not feel particularly motivated to help the Spooners, a white couple. Eventually, as any viewing of the entire speech makes clear, Sherrod changed her mind. She did help the couple, with whom she has remained friendly, and the experience became a turning point in her life when she learned to see beyond skin color and sought to work with blacks and whites battling to save small family farms that were shuttering by the thousands. White House officials subsequently issued an apology to Sherrod and offered her a new position with the USDA (which she declined). Shirley Sherrod and her husband received a share of a $13 million payment as part of the settlement of the Pigford case, as described by Time magazine: It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly 6,000-acre collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions. Back then, local USDA offices with power over loans were run by whites, and it took three times as long, on average, to process loan applications from black farmers as it did for whites. The Reagan Administration had shuttered the civil rights division in the USDA, which meant that complaints about discrimination were routinely discarded or thrown in drawers even as black ownership of farmland was on a steep decline. The failure of New Communities was so emotionally devastating to its participants that Shirley Sherrod's husband Charles later told the Washington Post, "For two years after all this happened, I wouldn't even talk about it. Couldn't talk about it, it hurt so much." But [Shirley] Sherrod did not let the USDA off the hook. New Communities became part of a massive class-action lawsuit against the department that was initially settled in 1999, reopened in 2008 and continues to pay claims for thousands of black farmers found to have been ignored, dismissed or mistreated by the USDA in the 1980s and 1990s. Out of about $1 billion paid out so far  reportedly the biggest civil rights settlement in history  the largest amount went to New Communities, which got some $13 million, with $330,000 awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone. "Thirteen million sounds like a lot, but it was not nearly enough. The land itself is probably worth at least $9 million," says the lawyer for New Communities, Rose Sanders. Last updated:  28 April 2013     Hennessey, Kathleen.  "Hard Feelings About Handling of Shirley Sherrod Have Deep Roots."   Los Angeles Times  4 August 2010.     Pickert, Kate.  "When Shirley Sherrod Was First Wronged by the USDA."   Time.  23 July 2010. Claim:   Wisconsin has passed a bill banning poor people from purchasing shellfish, potatoes, and ketchup.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] Is this true?  Origins:  Recents months have seen efforts by lawmakers in several states to limit what recipients of food stamps and other forms of public assistance may purchase with those benefits.  For example, a member of the Missouri legislature introduced a bill that would bar recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP) from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, seafood or steak. And Kansas passed a law prohibiting recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from spending those monies on a variety of goods and services: Missouri Kansas   Similarly, in May 2015, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill (Assembly Bill 177) that would require those who receive food stamps to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on foodstuffs designated by the state as nutritional items. The list of allowed nutritional items includes meat, fish, fresh produce, and white potatoes, but specifically excludes food stamps from being used for purchases of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish: bill   The larger list of allowed foodstuffs excludes such items as white potatoes, nuts, cranberry sauce, popsicles, spaghetti sauce, soup, ketchup, pickles, baked beans, flavored peanut butter, flavored milk, and brown eggs. foodstuffs Contrary to various inaccurate headlines, however, the proposed law (if fully passed and enacted as law) would not "ban" food stamp recipients from purchasing these food items; rather, it would restrict them from spending more than one-third of their SNAP benefits on such foodstuffs.  It's also unlikely the bill will be codified as law, as it would require a federal waiver that no state has ever received: headlines  No state has received such a waiver, but Rep. Brooks said he believes his bill is less restrictive than some proposed in other states and has a better chance of being implemented.   Proponents of the bill argue that it would promote healthier eating habits which would benefit both food stamp recipients and taxpayers:  They argue that limiting the purchase of junk food promotes healthy eating, reduces unspecified "abuses" and benefits society in the long run. "There is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.   Oppoents, however, contend that the bill would neither promote healthier eating nor reduce fraud:  "It's a restriction that's designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder," said Rep. Lisa Subeck. "And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare." To illustrate Democrats' opposition, Rep. Evan Goyke held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars  one shredded and one block  were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said. "The stated goals of this bill are nutrition and fraud," said Rep. Mark Spreitzer. "When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."   Last updated:  16 May 2015 In March 2023, several media outlets and conservative pundits began sharing images of what they described as a deleted 2018 tweet from climate activist Greta Thunberg's account. That tweet, quoting from a now-deleted article, said, "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." tweet  Climate skeptics jumped on the deleted tweet as evidence of climate alarmism, insinuating that Thunberg's tweet suggested that, if climate science was accurate, humanity should be extinct at the time of this reporting. insinuating  Several problems exist with that narrative. First and foremost is the fact that the tweet and the article it linked to never said that humanity would vanish in 2023. Second, and also of crucial importance, is the "top climate scientist" referenced in the underlying article never actually said what these reports asserted him to have said. Here, Snopes untangles the controversy.  Yes, on June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted a link to a now deleted article on the website GritPost bearing the headline, "Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023." The GritPost article rehashed content originally published on Forbes about a seminar given by James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric science, at the University of Chicago in 2018. tweeted deleted article content As reported by Forbes, Anderson's talk focused on the need for a massive effort to curb climate change over the next five years: reported People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industryan acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles. This has to be done, Anderson added, within the next five years. The assertion that humanity would collapse as a result of this inaction stemmed from statements Forbes attributed to Anderson about declining Arctic ice: Forbes attributed "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years. "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." Based on Internet Archive records, the GritPost article to which Thunberg linked was deleted sometime after July 2020. Thunberg deleted her tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. Thunberg did not respond to Snopes' request for comment. July 2020 sometime after The claim that a top climate scientist allegedly predicted the collapse of humanity in 2023 has been popular with climate skeptics since Anderson allegedly made the claim in 2018. The Forbes article and Thunberg tweet were both widely lampooned for their alarmism at the time. When 2023 came and humanity still persisted, these same actors were ready to relish the moment, as summarized by Newsweek: summarized [Charlie] Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, on March 12, 2023, wrote: "One of the best headlines of the year so far... 'Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying world will end in 2023 after world does not end.'" Filmmaker [Dinesh] D'Souza, on March 12, 2023, added: "Climate Radical Greta Thunberg Caught Red Handed: Deletes 2018 Tweet That Says World Will End Without Action by 2023." [Brigitte] Gabriel, founder of ACT for America, on March 11, 2023, also said: "Greta Thunberg deleted this tweet because it exposes her for being a fraud. Make sure the entire world sees it." All of these tweets misread the claim repeated by Thunberg, GritPost, and Forbes. The point, as these individuals or outlets reported, was that humanity had to reach certain carbon emission benchmarks by 2023, or else catastrophic events decades to centuries later would be guaranteed because of feedbacks in the climate system. As Forbes described: The answer [to the question "can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover"] is no in part because of what scientists call feedbacks, some of the ways the earth responds to warming. Among those feedbacks is the release of methane currently trapped in permafrost and under the sea, which will exacerbate warming. Another is the pending collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which Anderson said will raise sea level by 7 meters (about 23 feet). Conflating the years scientists claim to be so-called "tipping points" with the year in which the end result of those tipping points is supposed to emerge is a rhetorical tactic common in climate-denial circles. Snopes has previously reported on the imprecise quotes contained in a 1989 Associated Press article misused in a similar way. a similar way Regardless of any Thunberg tweet, the claim allegedly made by Anderson that "the chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero" has also recently been shared as evidence of climate "fraud," suggesting Anderson made a failed prediction:  The Forbes article was the only place in which the content of Anderson's seminar was reported, but Anderson toldThe Associated Press that he never made that argument, and that his words were wildly misinterpreted in media reports: Anderson told "That is a complete fabrication of what I said," Anderson wrote, referring to the claims he said humanity would be wiped out in five years. He said that during the seminar, he was displaying the most recent observations of Arctic sea ice volume  specifically the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean  and made the statement that "the current observed rate of floating ice loss volume, there will be no floating ice remaining by 2022." The focus of the statement was on the floating ice volume and the observed rate of disappearance at that time, he said. "Thus the statement was clear to those in attendance that the reference was to floating ice volume in the data shown on the slide, not arctic ice in general," Anderson clarified, adding, "so, the 'wiping out of humanity by 2022' is a total distortion of what I said or meant at the University of Chicago colloquium in 2018. I would never make such a statement." Thunberg deleted a tweet that repeated an imprecise paraphrase of a climate scientist's 2018 seminar talk. While it is factual that she deleted this tweet, claims that the tweet argued humanity would end in 2023 are false. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of truth. McMahon, Jeff. "We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says." Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/. Accessed 17 Mar. 2023. Norton, Tom. "Fact Check: Did Greta Thunberg Delete Claim That Humanity Will End by 2023?" Newsweek, 13 Mar. 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-greta-thunberg-delete-claim-that-humanity-will-end-2023-1787420. "Posts Distort 2018 Greta Thunberg Tweet on Climate Danger." AP NEWS, 16 Mar. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080. Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct If We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023. 1 May 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/.
 Update [3/22/2023]: Updated to read that Thunberg deleted the tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In June and July 2020, ahead of the presidential elections, Democratic candidate Joe Bidens various policy platforms were picked apart and in some cases misrepresented by critics, including U.S. President Donald Trump. One particular statement Biden made about health care for so-called "undocumented" immigrants was misreported and presented without context as his policy. picked apart Snopes readers asked us if Biden had ever said that U.S. taxpayers had an obligation to pay for the health care of 11 million "illegal immigrants." We found that Biden was misquoted, and his actual platform said something very different.   The quote appeared to originate from a clip shared by right-wing media organization BlazeTV, in May 2019. The video carried the title, "Joe Biden Says U.S. Obligated to Give Free Healthcare to 'Undocumented' Immigrants."  In the clip, a reporter asked Biden, Do you think the undocumented immigrants[that] are law abiding, should be entitled to federal benefits, Medicare, Medicaid for example? Biden responded: "Look I think that anyone who is in a situation where theyre in need of healthcare, regardless of whether theyre documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that theyre cared for. Thats why I think we need more clinics around the country." Biden echoed this in the June 2019 Democratic presidential debates. And in a December 2019 interview with Telemundo, he laid out the caveats in his plan: "They can buy into the system like everyone else" under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  June 2019 December 2019 On July 14, 2020, in a rambling speech, Trump misrepresented Biden's policy after it was presented by the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces. Trump said: They want government health care for all illegal aliens. speech misrepresented presented But here's what the task force actually recommended: task force "To ensure that people living and working across the country have health care access, the Task Force recommends extending Affordable Care Act coverage to DACA recipients, allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase unsubsidized coverage in the ACA marketplaces ..." Under this proposal, taxpayers would not be paying for undocumented immigrants health care, rather undocumented immigrants could have the option to pay out-of-pocket for health coverage through the ACA exchange marketplace, but without access to the government subsidies that are available to others. In 2019 Brookings estimated that there are 10.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Currently, they cannot enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace. Some state-funded or locally-funded health programs provide coverage regardless of immigration status. Emergency health services and safety-net clinics are already available to undocumented immigrants, which Biden had advocated for before.  Brookings estimated cannot state-funded available before In summary, even though Biden did state that the U.S. had an obligation to ensure immigrants received health care, his views were largely misrepresented and did not reflect his current policy. While he would extend health care access to undocumented immigrants through the marketplace, it was far from the government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded plan it was made out to be by Trump. We thus rate this claim as false. Dale, Daniel.  "Fact check: Trump Deceives About Sanders-Biden Task Force Proposals to Make Biden Sound 'Extreme.'"
 CNN. 15 July 2020. JoeBiden.com. "Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations."
 July 2020. Japsen, Bruce.  "Bidens Healthcare Idea For Undocumented Immigrants Already Exists."
 Forbes. 6 July 2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
 18 March 2020. Kamarck, Elaine and Christine Stenglein. "How Many Undocumented Immigrants are in the United States and Who are They?"
  Brookings Institute. 12 November 2019. Kelley, Alan and Renuka Tipirneni. "An Ironic Health Care Twist for Undocumented Immigrants."
 Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan. 2 May 2018. Whitehouse.gov. "Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference."
 14 July 2020. Few things anger New Jerseyans more than higher costs  and that just may be the point of a recentradio adcritical of Gov. Chris Christies time in office. One New Jersey, a Democratic grass-roots group, released the ad May 3. It uses the sound effects of a deck of cards being shuffled and cut to emphasize a theme that Christies gubernatorial tenure thus far has stacked the deck against taxpayers. Christie is up for re-election in November. His lone challenger is state Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex). The ad goes after Christie in a number of areas but were looking at issues that are near and dear to many New Jerseyans: toll costs, public transportation, education and the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes. Under Republican Governor Chris Christie, tolls cost more. Train and bus rides cost more. College tuition goes up. But Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires, a portion of the 60-second ad states. Most of the claims are accurate but some details are lacking. Lets start by reviewing toll hikes. One New Jersey is correct that tolls are higher under Christie, but doesnt mention that the state has hadtwomajor toll increases in recent years  the larger of which was courtesy of Democrat Jon Corzine, not Christie. In August 2011, Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo agreed to raise trans-Hudson tolls by $1.50 starting in September 2011, followed by additional hikes of 75 cents annually through 2015 to fund a $33 billion capital plan for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Those increases affected the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the Outerbridge Crossing and the Goethals, Bayonne and George Washington bridges. The Corzine-approved hike that took effect Jan. 1, 2012 increased tolls 53 percent on the New Jersey Turnpike and 50 percent on the Garden State Parkway. Those hikes were the second part of a two-phase toll increase adopted by the Turnpike Authority in October 2008, when Corzine was governor. And costs also have increased for train and bus rides since Christie became governor in January 2010. Three months after Christie took office, NJ Transit approved its largest fare hike in history to help close a $300 million budget gap for the fiscal year beginning that July 1. The hikes, the first since 2007, amounted to 25 percent for train and some bus riders and 10 percent for local bus riders and light rail commuters. In February 2010 Christie called NJ Transit a political patronage pit that needed to cut costs and said fare hikes would be unavoidable since drivers of the states roads had just experienced another toll hike. Next, lets look at college tuition. Christie cut funding for county colleges by 10 percent in 2010, a year that also saw record enrollment increases at the states two-year schools. Tuition increased an average of 4.4 percent. Also, 24 of New Jerseys four-year colleges and universities raised tuition and fees in 2010 faster than the inflation rate, according to a Star-Ledger survey that year. Still, tuition generally increases annually at most schools. Finally, did Christie protect a tax cut for millionaires? Democrats approved a bill in May 2010 renewing a one-year tax rate increase of 10.75 percent for those with taxable income above $1 million. The rate had expired before Christie became governor. Christie, who campaigned that he wouldnt raise taxes, vetoed the surcharge -- protecting the rich, some claim -- and Democrats couldnt override it. Plain and simple, Christie picks and chooses when and how to use his power  and on whose behalf, One New Jersey spokesman Joshua Henne said in an e-mail. He used his power to roll back a tax hike on millionaires, but chose not to use his power to roll back toll, tuition and fare increases that disproportionately hurt New Jerseys middle-class and working families. Christie for Governor spokesman Kevin Roberts declined comment. Our ruling Part of an ad about Christie claims, Under Republican Governor Chris Christie, tolls cost more. Train and bus rides cost more. College tuition goes up. But Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires. The ad is correct that tolls, train and bus fares, and college tuition increased on Christies watch but disregards that some of those increases resulted because the governor slashed funding in an effort to close budget gaps. As for protecting a tax cut for millionaires, weve heard this one before and well point out again that Christie technically didnt cut the millionaires tax since it expired before he took office. Still, opinions vary wildly on that claim. We rate this portion of the ad Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.