Is This a Line of Customers Outside First Republic Bank in Late April 2023?
On April 28, a Twitter user shared a photograph that purportedly showed a long queue of people waiting outside a First Republic Bank that morning, amid news that the bank was failing. shared a photograph "Can anyone confirm if this was taken outside of $FRC First Republic Bank this morning????," the tweeter asked.   (Image Via @GregoryLanzillo/Twitter) This was not an authentic photograph of people standing in a line outside a branch of First Republic Bank. A reverse image searchonGoogle showed that it was a stock photo that had previously appeared on other websites, including on a Purdue University article in September 2016. The image also featured on Twitter in October 2021, in this May 2022 piece on teachers and toilets and on an undated article about college admission waitlist. Additionally, some people in the photo were repeated throughout the line, clearly showing it was digitally created. article Twitter in October 2021 May 2022 piece on teachers and toilets college admission waitlist Snopes reached out to the tweeter who posted photograph and asked whether the user stood by their claim, but we have not heard yet. We will update the report when and if we get a response. Reports and claims about First Republic Bank surfaced soon after it became public that the bank was struggling. Panicky depositors at First Republic Bank withdrew more than $100 billion out of the bank, fearing another bank failureafter the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bankin March 2023. withdrew more than $100 billion after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank On May 1, 2023, the U.S. regulators seized First Republicand promptly sold all of its deposits and most of its assets to JPMorgan Chase Bank. promptly sold all of its deposits and most of its assets to JPMorgan Chase Bank Snopes fact-checked a number of related claims after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. One was about a photograph of "private jets" owned by bank CEOsasking "to get bought out by Warren Buffett," another held that15 banks failed during former U.S. President Donald Trump's term, and another posited that "The Simpsons" predicted the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. photograph of "private jets" owned by bank CEOs 15 banks failed during former U.S. President Donald Trump's term predicted the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank Given that the photo, above, was not of the people standing outside First Republic Bank, we rate the claim  "After Two Historic US Bank Failures, Here's What Comes next." AP NEWS, 13 Mar. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/banks-federal-reserve-silicon-valley-lending-rescue-a04875a164165b50e971ff4576bf4e27. All Things Toilets and Would You Encourage Your Children to Become Teachers? This, and More... - Teacher Tapp. 1 May 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230501135659/https://teachertapp.co.uk/articles/all-things-toilets-and-would-you-encourage-your-children-to-become-teachers-this-and-more/. "First Republic Bank Seized, Sold to JPMorgan Chase." AP NEWS, 1 May 2023, https://apnews.com/article/first-republic-bank-silicon-valley-fdic-5ab48702b7136d42f73ac13e0a20955d. "First Republic Clients Pulled $100B in Deposits during Panic." AP NEWS, 24 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/first-republic-bank-silicon-valley-federal-reserve-fdic-dimon-a6a5de4b82708573a846f24006b9f4c1. News Features - Purdue Business. https://business.purdue.edu/news/features/?research=3000. Accessed 1 May 2023. On a College Waitlist? Here Are Some Tips - Merit Educational Consultants. 1 May 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230501135600/https://meritworld.com/gakkomom/on-a-college-waitlist-here-are-some-tips/.
Fix Austin Schools, a group advocating voter approval of four bond propositions benefiting the Austin school district, slammed Gov. Rick Perrys education plan in a leaflet fielded by local voters in early May 2013.Under the word cut in capital letters, one side of the leaflet says: Under Rick Perry, Texas has CUT funding for public schools by 25%, a conclusion attributed to PolitiFact.Lynda Rife, a consultant to the group, told us the claim echoed our January 2013 review of Perrys statement to reporters at the time that Texas public school funding grew at three times the rate of enrollment from 2002 to 2012.In raw terms, there was a basis for Perrys claim. However, after adjusting for inflation and the effect of an annual tax swap put in motion by lawmakers and Perry in 2006, we concluded that Texas schools in 2012 were fielding 25 percent less in state aid than what they reaped in 2002. Perrys claim drew arating of False.At the time, we looked at enrollment changes and at both overall school spending, counting dollars from state, federal and local sources, and state education aid alone.EnrollmentEnrollment increased about 20 percent from 2001-02 to 2011-12, from more than 4.1 million to nearly 5 million students, according to a December 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. By email, agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us 2012-13 enrollment was expected to exceed 5 million, a figure subsequently confirmed, Ratcliffe told us recently by email.Overall spendingOverall school expenditures totaled $27.9 billion in 2002 and $44.2 billion in 2012, according to a chart from the Legislative Budget Board, which tracks fiscal issues for lawmakers.That makes for a difference of 58 percent, though thats also before adjusting for inflation, which the boards staff did by converting figures to 2004 dollars using an inflation adjuster devised by the federal government, the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government.In 2004 dollars, Texas public school spending in 2002 totaled $30.1 billion. In 2012, the total was $33.3 billion--11 percent greater than in 2002.By this measure, then, it looks like school enrollment went up faster than spending. Then again, we learned, these figures were not behind Perrys statement.State spending alonePerrys then-spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, told us by email that Perry was referring to the difference in state education spending alone as those are the funds the state has control over.The budget boards chart shows $10.9 billion in state spending on the schools in 2002 and $18.9 billion in 2012, for a 73 percent difference, or a little more than Perrys declared 70 percent.Adjusting for inflation, though, reduces the increase to 20 percent, which was still outpacing enrollment growth. In 2004 dollars, such spending was $14.2 billion in 2012, compared with $11.8 billion in 2002.Another crucial factorAnalyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities and school lobbyist Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency official, each pointed out another wrinkle, suggesting that any consideration of state education spending should take into account changes in law approved in 2006 resulting in the state picking up about $7 billion more in annual costs in return for school districts cutting local maintenance and operation property tax rates.Castro said by email: The property tax cut was $14.2 billion a biennium, or $7.1 billion every year. That means the state had to put in that amount of money a year to offset local property taxes falling by the same amount.The shift in funding sources did not, in itself, step up aid received by the schools, Castro said.Moak said by phone: This was simply a source-of-funds transfer.To adjust for the annual cost shift, we subtracted $7.1 billion from the state spending in 2012, suggesting a $0.9 billion difference from the 2002 spending. However, adjusting for inflation makes the 2012 state spending equal $8.2 billion in 2002 dollars--25 percent less than the $10.9 billion spent in 2002, which also would mean that spending trailed enrollment growth.For this article, finally, we weighed the message that the reduced spending was Perrys education plan. Perry was governor through all the spending decisions, but the reality is that Republican majorities of the 150-member House and 31-member Senate were needed to pass the decisions into law. Perry was key, but he didn't dictate actions. No governor can.Our rulingThe pro-bonds group said that under Perrys education plan, Texas has cut funding for public schools by 25 percent.State education spending in 2012 was 25 percent lower than it was in 2002, adjusting for inflation and the real effects of the 2006 law giving the state more responsibility for education revenues.Yet Perry didnt cause the reduction by himself; lawmakers acted, too. This clarification is missing from the groups statement, which we rate as Mostly True. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.     : Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. In late April 2021, social media posts, like the one displayed below, Google users allegedly asked the search engine "how to a hit a woman so now one knows" more often during the first phase of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 than during the same time frame the previous year. COVID-19   The claim originated from media sources including Blavity (a Los Angeles-based platform serving Black millennials), UNILAD (a British media outlet), and MSNBC (an American cable network owned by NBC Universal). Blavity UNILAD We obtained an archived version of an April 26 opinion column by the latter outlet, a piece of commentary that cited peer-reviewed research analyzing Google searches from the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 to the end of August that year. The MSNBC article said: archived version [Millions] of men appear to be doing some very specific research about how to assault the women around them. Published in The Journal of General Psychology, the study was led by Katerina Standish, the deputy director and senior lecturer at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. 'How to hit a woman so no one knows' was typed into Google 163 million times, a 31 percent increase compared to 2019. In other words, Google users purportedly searched "how to hit a woman so no one knows" 163 million times between March and August 2020, and that number was 31 percent higher than the amount of same searches during those months the previous year. However, that was not true. One day after the MSNBC column published, onlookers identified flaws in the research's methodology, and its author confirmed the findings were inaccurate. As a result, the news outlet removed the above-transcribed section from its article citing the research. (That updated version of the story remained live online as of this writing.) updated version We looked at Google search data ourselves. By searching the phrase "how to hit a woman so no one knows," the platform produces billions of returns  or websites or posts that contain those keywords. That is not the same as the number of times users searched the question (we explain how to find that quantity below), and it appeared to grow significantly after the MSNBC article and other media coverage. appeared   By using the separate Google Trends search engine -- a tool that compiles data for Google search queries worldwide -- we learned that relatively no one used the website to look for information on "how to hit a woman so no one knows," including during the time window referenced in the study (March to August 2020).   Next, to fully explore the issue, we reached out to Standish (the author of the study called, "COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase") to learn about her research process and its shortcomings. COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase She responded to us via email, saying she indeed mistook the amount of search returns for the number of times Google users entered the phrase looking for answers. After the revelation, she said she alerted The Journal of General Psychology of the error and requested an assessment of the entire study. "The results are meaningless ... all I have done is demonstrate a rise in web pages over the year. Not at all what I thought I was doing," Standish said. "[The] goal of the study was to look for people who were hurting to elevate what they are going through and to help." Additionally, Standish apologized for the research's flaws on Twitter:    "The first time I googled these terms my heart skipped...I was shocked," she continued in a tweet thread. "I sincerely apologise and will make amends." In sum, we rate this claim "false"  millions of people, presumably men, did not turn to Google for help to seemingly conceal physical abuse against their female partners during the early months of the pandemic. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help. Natio nal  Domestic Violence Hotline This report was updated with comments from the researcher to Snopes. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 A few weeks before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, a meme began to circulate on social media suggesting the 1956 Republican platform included policies that would more closely match those of progressives in later years: meme  The tenets listed in the 1956 Republican platform graphic certainly deviate from many of the GOP's current party lines, but were the following cited planks notably different six decades ago? It's difficult to make a direct comparison for a few reasons. One is that the Republican Party's national platform is not necessarily the same as the issues espoused by individual candidates at the federal, state, or local levels. In recent years, the advent of social media has enabled candidates and political organizations to push individually important agendas that may not hew to the party's overall national platform. Another issue is defining what the party's platform is at any given time. The most recent available Republican Party platform dated to 2012, during the campaign of Mitt Romney. Not all issues addressed in the graphic above were directly mentioned or comparably referenced in the 2012 platform, and individual Republican Party members who have made statements about platform issues since then do not necessarily speak for the GOP at large. The image displayed above first points to assistance for "low-income communities," language that does not specifically appear in the 1956 Republican platform. Under the heading of "Labor," the original document supported (to a degree) several of the positions summarized in the graphic in respect to minimum wage laws, unemployment assistance, and equal pay irrespective of gender: platform The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers; Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers; Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system; Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits; Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex; Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts; Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable; Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex; Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment. The quoted portion did not specify expanded access to unemployment insurance benefits. However, the introduction addressed matters of expanding that benefit, as well as Social Security and even health care. The word "Protect" did not appear in that bit, but it did state: We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs  expansion of social security  broadened coverage in unemployment insurance  improved housing  and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system. On the matter of supporting and encouraging labor unions, the 1956 Republican platform stated that "workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform ... workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions." It pledged to: Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations. By contrast, the 2012 Republican Party platform said of workers, unemployment insurance, and worker protections that: platform The best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. We want much more than that. We want a roaring job market to match a roaring economy. Instead, what this Administration has given us is 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent, the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all.In all the sections that follow, as well as elsewhere in this platform, we explain what must be done to achieve that goal. The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-State-private partnership must invest in the nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. Unions were also addressed in the 2012 platform in a somewhat different manner: We will restore the rule of law to labor law by blocking "card check," enacting the Secret Ballot Protection Act, enforcing the Hobbs Act against labor violence, and passing the Raise Act to allow all workers to receive well-earned raises without the approval of their union representative. We demand an end to the Project Labor Agreements; and we call for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which costs the taxpayers billions of dollars annually in artificially high wages on government projects. We support the right of States to enact Right-to-Work laws and encourage them to do so to promote greater economic liberty. Ultimately, we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law to promote worker freedom and to promote greater economic liberty. We will aggressively enforce the recent decision by the Supreme Court barring the use of union dues for political purposes without the consent of the worker. Republicans in 1956 appeared markedly softer on matters of immigration and asylum, as their platform explained: The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice. We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support. In 2012, the GOP platform was slightly more stringent: We recognize that for most of those seeking entry into this country, the lack of respect for the rule of law in their homelands has meant economic exploitation and political oppression by corrupt elites. In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. We support the mandatory use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (S.A.V.E.) program  an internet-based system that verifies the lawful presence of applicants  prior to the granting of any State or federal government entitlements or IRS refunds. We insist upon enforcement at the workplace through verification systems so that jobs can be available to all legal workers. Use of the E-verify program  an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees  must be made mandatory nationwide. State enforcement efforts in the workplace must be welcomed, not attacked. When Americans need jobs, it is absolutely essential that we protect them from illegal labor in the workplace. In addition, it is why we demand tough penalties for those who practice identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings. It is why we support Republican legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security long-term detention authority to keep dangerous but undeportable aliens off our streets, expedite expulsion of criminal aliens, and make gang membership a deportable offense. Social Security warranted a few mentions in the 2012 platform, most notably in this portion: For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today's taxpayers - and future generations - face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made log-jam - the so-called stalemate in Washington - particularly affects the government's three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Among the remaining points of the graphic, gender pay discrepancy was not directly referenced in the 2012 platform. While the two platforms from 1956 and 2012 may appear starkly different when compared side-by-side, one must also keep in mind that the Republican Party tenets referenced in this meme predate many of the issues American voters now feel are central to their lives 60 years on. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. In February 2020, Rush Limbaugh announced he had been diagnosed with "advanced lung cancer," prompting widespread reflection on the controversial and influential conservative talk radio host's career, as well as renewed scrutiny of his past pronouncements. diagnosed In light of Limbaugh's lung cancer diagnosis, some of his detractors suggested that a measure of irony was at work, given his previous statements on smoking and nicotine. In particular, some social media users shared the following quotation, attributed to Limbaugh: shared "There is no conclusive proof that nicotines addictive... And the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease." Social media users posted several memes containing the same quotation, including the following AZ Quotes graphic: posted several memes AZ Quotes   The statement first emerged in 1994, when the left-leaning non-profit organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) published an in-depth examination of several dozen false and misleading claims made by Limbaugh on his radio and television shows, in his books, and elsewhere. The July/August edition of FAIR's newsletter Extra! contained a report with the headline "The Way Things Aren't  Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality." report In the "Weird Science" section of the eight-page article, FAIR highlighted the following claim, made by Limbaugh during the April 29, 1994, episode of his radio program "The Rush Limbaugh Show": section "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...[or with] cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease." FAIR refuted those assertions as follows: Nicotines addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koops 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual." By that time, Limbaugh was already a leading conservative voice in American media, and his radio show was syndicated to hundreds of stations across the country. FAIR's expos made a splash and garnered news coverage by major outlets including The Associated Press. The Associated Press The lengthy magazine article later formed the basis for a book entitled "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error," which was published in 1995 and debunked more than 100 of Limbaugh's falsehoods.  book One of the book's authors, Steve Rendall, told Snopes the tape recordings he had made of Limbaugh's radio broadcasts during that era had not survived the intervening 26 years, and therefore could not be consulted. Similarly, we did not find any official transcript of the April 29, 1994, episode. (Limbaugh's website features an archive of thousands of recordings and transcripts of his shows, but it only stretches back to the year 2000).  However, Limbaugh effectively confirmed the authenticity of the quotation and reiterated the same point in a lengthy rebuttal of FAIR's article, which the organization itself printed. Limbaugh wrote (emphasis added): printed My point, made over and over again in recent months, is that if nicotine is really a terrible drug then Congress should just call it a terrible drug and ban it outright. The fact is that nicotines addictiveness and whether or not it is a drug is, contrary to FAIRs assertion, a source of tremendous controversy  so controversial that The Washington Posts lead editorial on July 2, 1994 dealt entirely with this issue. "[F]ood and drug commissioner David Kesslerhas begun an effort to determine whether nicotine-containing cigarettes meet the laws definition of a drug. If they do, the Food and Drug Administration has the duty to regulate them if cigarettes are a drug, and if they cant be shown in their present form to be safe and effective  which a drug would have to be in order to be sold, and which is not very likely  then what does the government do?" In saying that "nicotine's addictiveness ... is ... a source of tremendous controversy," Limbaugh was effectively reiterating the claim that "there is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive." In his rebuttal, he also did not dispute in any way that FAIR's quoting of him was accurate. So while we cannot consult the original audio recording or an official transcript to verify whether Limbaugh's exact wording was as FAIR presented it, we can confirm that FAIR gave a proper presentation of Limbaugh's views on that specific issue, because the radio host effectively restated them shortly afterwards, and never disputed the wording presented by FAIR.  Limbaugh's views on the addictiveness of nicotine have since changed. In a July 2004 episode of his radio show, he said nicotine was "the most addictive drug, substance, whatever, on the planet," but argued that it might have other health benefits. In September 2019, he again described nicotine as "the most addictive drug on earth," but argued in favor of electronic cigarettes on the basis that the liquids they use do not produce the carcinogens produced by traditional, combustible tobacco cigarettes.  said described Limbaugh himself was often photographed smoking cigars and earlier in life smoked cigarettes, though he said he quit the cigarette habit in the 1980s. Limbaugh himself was often photographed smoking cigars Elber, Lynn. "Rush Limbaugh Says He's Been Diagnosed With Lung Cancer."
  The Associated Press. 4 February 2020. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "The Way Things Aren't -- Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality."
  Extra! 1 July 1994. The Associated Press/The News-Press. "Liberal Group: Limbaugh is Leading 'Reign of Error.'"
  29 June 1994. Rendall, Steven; Naureckas, Jim; Cohen, Jeff. "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error."
  The New Press. 1 May 1995. Limbaugh, Rush. "Limbaugh Responds to FAIR."
  Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. 28 June 1994. Limbaugh, Rush. "Demonized Nicotine May Smoke Diseases."
  19 July 2004. Limbaugh, Rush. "'Experts' On TV Really Don't Have to Know Anything Anymore."
  18 September 2019. In late March 2019, a photograph supposedly showing piles of "worthless" currency thrown into gutters in Venezuela circulated on social media, attached to comments blaming socialism for the phenomenon behind the striking visual. One popular posting on Facebook was captioned, "This is a street in Venezuela. That's money in the gutter. It's worthless. Welcome to socialism.": Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of worthless money dumped in the gutter of a Venezuelan street. However, the accompanying caption presents an oversimplification of the series of events that led to this currency's worthlessness and its discarding by Venezuelan residents. The economic collapse in Venezuela that began in 2013 is a complex matter which can't be attributed to any single factor. News outlets such as Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Fox News have cited a wide range of issues that led to the country's current economic crisis, including plunging oil prices, government corruption, political unrest, and socialist policies. That brew of unfavorable economic conditions has spawned massive hyperinflation which has greatly devalued Venezuela's currency, as the Washington Post reported in January 2018: Bloomberg New York Times Fox News reported Hyperinflation is disorienting. Five or six years ago, 500 bolivars wouldve bought you a meal for two with wine at the best restaurant in Caracas. As late as early last year, they wouldve bought you at least a cup of coffee. At the end of 2016, they still bought you a cup of caf con leche, at least. Today, they buy you essentially nothing ... well, except for 132 gallons of the worlds most extravagantly subsidized gasoline. Although hyperinflation has indeed caused the bolivar to become all but worthless, the caption on this viral photograph is a bit misleading. The money shown lying in the gutter in this picture is Venezuela's old currency, the Bolvar Fuerte, which was replaced by a new form of currency, the Bolivar Soberano, in August 2018.  When the Bolivar Soberano was introduced, Bolvar Fuerte currency in amounts less than 1,000 ceased to be legal tender, and Bolivar Fuerte currency in all amounts was completely withdrawn on 5 December 2018.   Hence the discarded money seen here was literally worthless not because it had no value, because it had been completely replaced by a newer currency and was no longer legal tender. Here's an excerpt from a CNN report about the switch in currencies: CNN Venezuela issued a new currency in an attempt to bolster its crumbling economy as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation could hit one million percent this year. The move, part of a dramatic raft of measures aimed at halting runaway hyperinflation, comes as thousands of Venezuelans continue to flee across the border into neighboring countries amid food and medicine shortages, political turmoil and soaring crime rates. In a tweet posted following the unveiling of Venezuela's new currency, the country's president Nicolas Maduro hailed the recovery package as a "revolutionary formula." The new "Bolivar Soberano" currency is worth 100,000 "old" Bolivares. "We found the revolutionary formula that puts work in the center of the general re-adjustment of society, based on the production of goods and the value of salary. With that, we're gonna put to rest forever the perverse model that dollarized the prices in the country," tweeted Venezuela's 55-year-old leader. "I call on the people to defend -- conscientiously -- the adjustment of the prices on street," Maduro later said in another tweet. A bank holiday was declared, with banks remaining closed as the new currency took effect. The rebranded currency, which has five fewer zeroes than the country's previous currency and will be pegged to a cryptocurrency called the Petro, is intended to simplify transactions. The viral photograph was likely taken on 11 March 2019 and showed the aftermath of looting at a bank in the town of Merida. Local news outlet Maduradas.com compiled several other photographs of the incident and reported that the perpetrators had discarded the old money on the streets and even lit some of it on fire (translated via Google): Maduradas.com TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles (+Fotos) Este lunes 11 de marzo, encapuchados saquearon la agencia del banco Bicentenario en la avenida 3, de Glorias Patrias, en el estado Mrida. El hecho fue confirmado por el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional Williams Dvila, as como por el corresponsal de El Nacional en el estado Mrida, Leonardo Len. A travs de la red social Twitter, informaron que los ciudadanos esparcieron montones de billetes de viejo cono monetario en las calles, los cuales despus fueron incendiados. TERRIBLE! Hooded (vandals) sacked the bank Bicentenario in Merida and scattered bolivars of the old currency through the streets (+ Photos) On Monday, March 11, hooded (vandals) sacked the Bicentenario bank agency on Avenue 3, Glorias Patrias, in the state of Merida. The fact was confirmed by the deputy of the National Assembly Williams Dvila, as well as by the correspondent of El Nacional in the state of Mrida, Leonardo Len. Through the social network Twitter, they reported that citizens scattered piles of old money bills in the streets, which were then set on fire. Venezuelan journalists and social media users shared several other photographs of the scene: Ayer se produjo el saqueo de un banco bicentenario en la ciudad de Mrida, en las cercanas de la plaza Glorias Patrias. Los saqueadores incendiaron una pila de bolvares adems de dejar muchos billetes por el suelo. pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo  Descifrando la Guerra (@descifraguerra) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos,#12Mar,#solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos #12Mar #solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF  EntornoInteligente (@ENTORNOi) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  #MeridaBanco Bicentenario en Merida fue robado, slo haban billetes del viejo cono monetario que terminaron tapizando las calles del centro de la ciudadVenezuela es realismo magico y tragicoSarai Suarez pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70 #Merida pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70  Nellie B. Izarza ? ???? (@myteks) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  In short, the "money in gutters" image shown above captured an older and now invalid form of currency that was tossed aside after the looting of a bank, and not usable currency discarded by citizens because it had been made next to worthless due to "socialism." Sterling, Joe.  "Venezuela Issues New Currency, Amid Hyperinflation and Social Turmoil."
  CNN.  23 August 2018. Toro, Franciso.  "In Venezuela, Money Has Stopped Working."
  The Washington Post.  17 January 2018. Llorente, Elizabeth.  "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
  Fox News.  4 April 2019. The New York Times.  "The Crisis in Venezuela Was Years in the Making. Heres How It Happened."
  23 January 2019. Martin, Eric and Patricia Laya.  "What Broke Venezuela's Economy and What Could Fix It."
  Bloomberg.  9 March 2019. Maduradas.com.  "TERRIBLE! Encapuchados Saquearon Banco Bicentenario en Mrida y Esparcieron Bolvares Del Viejo Cono Monetario Por Las Calles (+Fotos)."
  12 March 2019. El Nacional.  "Billetes Inferiores a 1.000 Bolvares No Tendrn Valor a Partir del 20A."
  14 August 2018. 2001.com.ve.  "Bolvar Fuerte Circular Hasta el Mircoles 5 de Diciembre."
  Accessed 5 April 2019. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007.