Says Donald Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.
In the opening skirmish of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton cast her rival as a man who put his own business interests ahead of the welfare of average Americans. Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis, Clinton said. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money. What does the record show? We found many examples from 2006 to 2009 when Donald Trump spoke of the great opportunity that came with falling real estate prices. One of the earliest instances was in a Trump audiobook from 2006. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position  which I'm in a good cash position today  then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Now that was before the collapse that led to the Great Recession, and arguably, Trump was simply offering sound business guidance. Trump touted the same view acoupleof times in2007. But at that point, the country still was not looking at an economic catastrophe. The situation was quite different by early 2009. The investment house Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in U.S. history. The Dow had suffered its worst weekly loss ever. Washington had bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Foreclosures were rising weekly. Trump was on CNNFeb. 17, 2009, talking about the economy with host Wolf Blitzer and said the moment was a great opportunity. Blitzer asked Trump why. If you get something really prime, really good, eventually it's going to be worth a lot more than you paid, Trump explained. I used to tell people two years ago, don't buy real estate and I used to preach it hard. And now I'm saying, I think that this is a good time. Whether you hit the exact market or not, I can't tell you. But I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy. To be clear, Trump was speaking as an investor. He was not necessarily rooting for the housing crisis. But it was under way as he spoke. We reached out to the Trump campaign and did not receive any information to add to this picture. Our ruling Clinton said Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of Americans, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities the overall situation created for an investor such as himself. Clintons statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trumps words. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/22c6df0a-1ffe-421d-b06a-b6c208a27038
One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions," as described by Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog: described By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. [...] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual  not on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. [...] Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion. Clarence Thomas' concurrence with the majority opinion led several media outlets to rehash an assertion that, at least for a period of time in the 1980s when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Thomas's views on affirmative action programs were ambivalent  if not opportunist. This claim has been in recirculation since the Supreme Court announced that they had added cases challenging affirmative action to their docket: media outlets This claim recirculation  (@tonywolfness/Twitter) That claim appears to have first been raised following Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court  in a July 14, 1991 New York Times article titled "On Thomas's Climb, Ambivalence About Issue of Affirmative Action." That article cited a line from a January 1983 speech given by Thomas to employees of the EEOC: article In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he then headed, he said that affirmative action laws were of "paramount importance" to him. "But for them, God only knows where I would be today," he said. "These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." Though repeated in this way by several media outlets both during Thomas' Supreme Court nomination process in the 1990s and again in 2023, this is an incorrect paraphrase of Thomas's statements. Thomas's full remarks were published as a law article in the Journal of Labor Law in April 1983. repeated published When read with the full context of this speech, it is clear that the "them" used in the phrase "but for them" referred not to affirmative action laws in particular, but to equal employment opportunity laws  as articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964  more generally. The speech, broadly, was a defense of the EEOC's work during the Reagan administration, which faced criticism over a massive reduction in discrimination claims pursued under its leadership. faced criticism Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act  a landmark bill signed during the Lyndon Johnson Administration  prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC, which first began operations in 1965, was created as part of the 1964 Act as the agency tasked with investigating and enforcing Title VII violations. Title VII in 1965 Over the years, the EEOC has expanded to investigate and enforce violations of other Federal anti-discrimination laws including those against discrimination against pregnant women, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. By the end of the Carter administration, the EEOC had expanded considerably under chairwoman Eleanor Norton's tenure, as described in a March 1981 report: report Thanks in part to Ms Norton's streamlined methods, which enabled EEOC to process 50,000 cases per year during her tenure, she views the equal-employment field as "very stable now. We have had 10 years of extraordinary and deep court cases to build the law." "Even if they disbanded EEOC tomorrow," she said, "and there is no way they could, there would still be thousands of court cases presented each year based on precedent." Norton, here, was referencing an unpublished report commissioned by the Reagan transition team that was extremely critical of the EEOC, as reported by The Washington Post in January 1981: reported A Reagan administration advisory panel has urged that equal employment opportunity law and procedures to be changed so that much more evidence would be required to find a business guilty of discrimination and no business could be forced to adopt an "affirmative action" plan against its will. The advisory unit attacked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for having created a new racism in America in which every individual is judged by race." The group was led by J.A. Parker, a black and head of the Lincoln Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with black issues. Its unpublished report was sent to the then-president-elect last month. Following Reagan's inauguration, the chairmanship of the EEOC office was vacant until early 1982, when Thomas was tapped to lead the EEOC. Democrats, at the time, were skeptical of Thomas' commitment to alleviating discrimination. These concerns were not helped by a massive decline in cases pursued under Thomas, or by the massive reduction in the EEOC budget under Reagan, as reported in a 1983 article: was tapped skeptical 1983 article In Fiscal Year 1982, there was upwards of 70 percent fewer cases filed in court than in 1981 on behalf of grieved workers. EEOC employees report that, because of a lack of staff and resources, cases often receive perfunctory investigation and in many instances, charges have been dismissed or "no caused" because they would prove too difficult or time-consuming to process. The speech in question, delivered to employees of the EEOC, was a response to these criticisms and an attempt to clarify to his staff what Thomas felt the role of the EEOC should  and should not  be. In his remarks, Thomas cited "the changing nature of discrimination," and heralded inroads his EEOC had made in fighting age and gender discrimination: speech It should not be surprising that many of our most prominent cases involve allegations of age and sex discrimination, many resulting from reductions in force and forced retirement. This does not mean that charges of race, national origin, or religious discrimination are not filed with the EEOC and that the EEOC does not bring suit in such cases. It only means that there is now a special public and judicial sensitivity to cases involving age and women. Importantly, the speech is explicitly critical of the discourse surrounding affirmative action, and the policies Thomas advocated represented, at best, a muted skepticism toward the concepts' then-present use: represented No one in his right mind seriously questions the legal and moral bankruptcy of discrimination. The same unanimity of opinion does not exist for affirmative action. Affirmative action has been and will continue to be a subject of hot debate because mere mention of the term divides interest groups into two warring camps: one hotly in favor and one hotly opposed. [...] In their haste to condemn each other, the camps lose sight of the nature and purpose of equal employment opportunity laws. [...] This divisive debate results in general confusion and misunderstanding about affirmative action which, in turn, tends to undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the enforcement of civil rights laws. As the lead agency in the enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws, the EEOC cannot stand by and allow confusion about affirmative action to undermine our enforcement efforts. We must attempt to bring out and clarify the issues obscured by this debate. [...] Much of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms interchangeably. Thomas, in his speech, expressed the view that "too much posturing" had taken place over the debate about affirmative action, but he also affirmed that affirmative action programs had been "critical to minorities and women in this society." The section of the speech paraphrased to claim that Thomas was once amenable to affirmative action followed the above remarks: followed It is my view that too much posturing has taken place on issues such as affirmative action, which are critical to minorities and women in this society. The problems which we face in the area of equal employment opportunity must be solved. For the most part, they must be solved by applying legal principles of paramount importance to me. But for them, God only knows where I would be today. [...] These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. The reference to the "first 17 years" of his life is an allusion to statements Thomas made in the opening of this speech, when Thomas referenced "the fact that the Chairman of the EEOC spent 17 years of his life (one-half) under strict segregation." This connection, along with the broader context of the speech, makes it clear that "these laws" are those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. opening The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation when Thomas was a few months shy of 17. It also created the "equal employment opportunity laws" at issue under Title VII that provide the EEOC the audience of his speech  with its legal authority. At the end of his speech, during this second allusion to the end of segregation, Thomas warned against the improper use of those laws, even when used with good intention: shy of 17 I abhor any effort to twist, bend, or distort them [legal principles] for any reasons, whether such distortions are said to help or hurt minorities or women. No one should be permitted to turn these laws on their heads just because they have good intentions. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. In sum, Thomas did not present anything more than a muted acknowledgement of the EEOC's role in some forms of affirmative action, and the laws or principles he was referring to in remarks that have since gone viral did not concern affirmative action specifically, but the principles contained within the 1964 Civil Rights Act more broadly. 1964 Civil Rights Act That Thomas, who recently ruled against the use of racial quotas in college admissions, would have described affirmative action as "critical to minorities and women in this society" has been painted as an example of Thomas' hypocrisy on affirmative action. The portion of the speech often cited to make this point is mischaracterized, even if that point has validity. Specifically, the 1991 reporting in The New York Times reported, as its primary scoop, that Yale Law School had a 10 percent minority goal the year in which Thomas applied to and was accepted into the program: 1991 reporting Judge Clarence Thomas, who came to prominence as a fierce black critic of racial preference programs, was admitted to Yale Law School under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class, university officials said. Under the program, which was adopted in 1971, the year Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic applicants were evaluated differently from whites, the officials said. Nonetheless, they were not admitted unless they met standards devised to predict they could succeed at the highly competitive school. [...] "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated," said Prof. Abraham S. Goldstein, who was dean of the Law School from 1970 to 1975. Thomas has also acknowledged this part of his history, as reported in 1980 by The Washington Post. "The worst experience of his life," he reportedly explained at the time, "was attending college and law school with whites who believed he was there only because of racial quotas for the admission of blacks." as reported Frank Washington, a Yale friend interviewed by Newsweek in 1991, said that Thomas had, in private, "recognized that affirmative action helped to get him into law school, but on the basis of economic deprivation rather than race." interviewed While there are separate arguments to be made of the notion that Thomas' views on affirmative action are hypocritical due to his personal benefit from such programs, removing context from a speech to make it sound like that alleged hypocrisy was more overtly stated is misleading. Because the laws and principles Thomas was referring to were those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not any specific affirmative action legislation, the claim is False. Bella, Timothy. "The Time Clarence Thomas Said Affirmative Action Was 'Critical' for Society." Washington Post, 1 July 2023. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/30/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action/. "Black Conservatives, Center Stage." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Clarence Thomas in 1983: "God Only Knows Where" I Would Be If Not for Affirmative Action - Alternet.Org. https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-1983-affirmative-action/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a991116c071ffe6a6547f7505c13f63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816463. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Eagleton Backs EEOC Nominee With Reluctance." Newspapers.Com, 1 Apr. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-eagleton-backs-e/127670235/. "Federal Agency Reformer Leaves with No Misgivings." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 1981, https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-federal-agency-reformer/127564899/. "New EEOC Nomination." Newspapers.Com, 1 Mar. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/athol-daily-news-new-eeoc-nomination/127670013/. "Regan Undermines EEOC Enforcement." Newspapers.Com, 5 Feb. 1983, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-voice-regan-undermines-eeoc/127667015/. Rich, Spencer. "Reagan Panel, Citing 'New Racism,' Urges Easing of EEOC Rules." Washington Post, 30 Jan. 1981. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/30/reagan-panel-citing-new-racism-urges-easing-of-eeoc-rules/dfd79721-7bbc-4ef0-91a3-ee5425904abe/. "Supreme Court Strikes down Affirmative Action Programs in College Admissions." SCOTUSblog, 29 June 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/. "Timeline of Important EEOC Events." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/timeline-important-eeoc-events. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Accessed 5 July 2023. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. President Donald Trump disputed theNew York Times' reportthat he paid little to no federal income taxes in many years,claimingin the first presidential debate with former Vice President Joe Biden that he actually paid millions of dollars in federal income taxes. At the same time, Trump also said he tries to reduce what he pays through legal tax maneuvers, and he blamed Biden for the laws that let him do so. I dont want to pay tax, Trump said at one point. Like every other private person, unless they're stupid, they go through the laws, and that's what it is, Trump said. (Biden) passed a tax bill that gave us all these privileges for depreciation and for tax credits. We built a building, and we get tax credits like the hotel on Pennsylvania Ave.  Trumps claim that he paid millions of dollars in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is countered by the New York Times, which obtained years of his tax-return data. But we wondered about the presidents claim about a Biden-passed tax bill. Asked what Trump was referring to, the Trump campaigncited a passagein the Times report, which described how Trump got a $72.9 million tax refund due to a change made under President Barack Obama. The change was part of a law enacted during the Great Recession. It allowednet operating lossesincurred by businessesin 2008 and 2009to be deducted from tax liability for the previous five years, rather than the prior limit restricting such carrybacks to two years. Biden was vice president at the time the provision kicked in. Now business owners could request full refunds of taxes paid in the prior four years, and 50 percent of those from the year before that, the Times wrote. Trump took advantage of this change to wipe out the federal income taxes he paid from 2005 through 2007 with the tax refund, which he claimed and received starting in 2010, according to the Times. The refund is the subject of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service. What does that have to do with depreciation and tax credits? Without access to Trumps tax returns and financial records, its difficult to know what privileges Trump was talking about. The Trump campaign did not respond when PolitiFact asked if there were other tax bills or privileges linked to Biden that Trump was referencing. But tax experts said Trumps mention of the historic preservation tax credit he received for his hotel in Washington appears to jumble the details between the tax refund he got and other tax deductions or credits he may have taken to reduce his tax liability over the years. One could view the statement (from Trump) as simply confused and getting the details badly wrong, said Daniel Shaviro, a professor of taxation at New York University School of Law. Trumps debate-night claim has to do with theprovision passed under Obamathat allowed losses from businesses to be used to recoup taxes paid in the previous five years. The provision was part of theWorker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009. A business can only carryback or carryforward certain amounts, and that bill removed some of those restrictions temporarily for 2008 and 2009, said Joseph Bishop-Henchman, the vice president of tax policy and litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Its an efficient, relatively hidden way to help certain rich people, added Edward McCaffery, a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California, whonoted in an op-edthat a similar provision was included in the coronavirus relief bill from March. Joe Biden speaks at a panel on the economy in Washington on Nov. 5, 2009, one day before the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 was signed into law. (AP) In Trumps case, the change let him request the tax refund that is now being scrutinized by the IRS and a congressional tax committee. If the IRS decides the refund was illegitimate, the Times reported Trump could owe the government more than $100 million. The audit dispute over Trumps tax refund may center, according to the Times, on Trumps declaration in his 2009 tax return of more than $700 million in business losses. The Times said the materials it obtained did not show which business or businesses created those losses. The carryback rule would have allowed losses incurred for any reason to be applied to income up to five years in the past, McCaffery said, including losses from depreciation, or the reduction in the value of property or an asset over time. But its unlikely that all Trumps losses are from depreciation, experts told PolitiFact. The Times reported that Trumps records show that his casinos, golf courses and other interests lose real money, and that he has lost chunks of his fortune even before depreciation is figured in. We'd have to know precisely where the excess losses that he had circa 2009 came from, McCaffery said. The fact that this is what the IRS is auditing strongly suggests its not simply depreciation, which would be based on easily audited facts. Theres a lot more to what hes done than just using depreciation and tax credits, added Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Other tax maneuvers documented by the Times included questionable write-offs for business expenses and a charitable tax deduction. But the $700 million in losses appears to correspond with Trumps decision to part ways with his casinos in Atlantic City, N.J., the Times reported. Theres no obvious connection between the 2009 bill, whichdoesnt mentiondepreciation, and other depreciation deductions or tax credits Trump may have applied. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the change to carryback rules was not a tax credit. Trumps reference to his hotel in Washington, D.C., further muddles the facts. The exterior of the Trump International Hotel in Washington on Oct. 26, 2016. (AP) A 2015reportby Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., found that the Trump Organizationgot $40 millionin the form of a historic preservation tax credit for renovating the Old Post Office into a hotel, which the Times said he has used to reduce his tax liability in more recent years. But that type of credit has beenon the bookssince 1976. This didnt have to do with any policy change on the part of the Obama administration or Congress, Watson said. Laws enacted under Obama didcreate or extendseveral tax credits. Bishop-Henchman noted that Obamaseconomic recoverypackagesextendedprovisions allowing businesses todeduct 50% of the costof certain properties up front, rather than write all costs off over time. As a U.S. senator representing Delaware, Biden also voted yes on a pair of bipartisan tax laws in1981and1986that overhauled the depreciation system, Watson said, while also noting that depreciation existed in a slightly different form before 1981. We dont know how those particular changes impacted Trumps specific tax situation, Watson added. Depreciation changes in the code are generally changes in timing of when expenses associated with an investment are deducted, so they do not impact total tax paid in the long run. Regardless, Biden was just one senator. Its always peculiar when Trump is blaming Biden for legislation that happened to be enacted when Biden was in office as a senator or the vice president, Rosenthal said, noting that there are many more people involved with tax legislation. Trump said Biden passed a tax bill that gave us all these privileges for depreciation and for tax credits. We built a building, and we get tax credits like the hotel on Pennsylvania Ave. A 2009 provision enacted under Obama allowed losses to be used to reduce tax liability for up to five previous years. The Times reported that Trump used this provision to claim a major tax refund. At the time, Biden was vice president. Other depreciation deductions and tax credits that Trump may have applied  including the decades-old tax credit for his hotel in Washington  are not clearly linked to Biden or to the 2009 provision that let Trump claim his refund. Overall, Trumps claim is partially accurate. We rate it Half True. Concerns about the countrys food supply are weighing heavily on many Americans as baby formula is hard to find and international conflict threatens commodities like wheat in some parts of the world. A social media post invoking those fears harks back to U.S. history to suggest that the government is purposely creating food shortages. In 1873 the U.S. government killed 1.5 million buffalo to starve Native Americans so they would become more dependent on the government, read one such May 11post. Fast forward to today, and the government is creating food shortages to achieve exactly the SAME goal! It was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) The post has a point about why so many buffalo were killed in the late 1800s, but it makes an unfounded comparison: Theres no evidence the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages. In the mid-1800s, more than 30 million buffalo roamed the plains; by the end of the 19th century, only afew hundredremained. The rapid population decline was due to overhunting, which was welcomed by U.S. officials as a way toforceNative Americans in the Great Plains region tosettle on reservations. Andrew Isenberg, an American history professor at the University of Kansas and theauthorof The Destruction of the Bison, said white hunters in the late 1800s likely killed far more than the 1.5 million buffalo mentioned in the post  a fact federal authorities knew. The U.S. federal government did not actively destroy bison in order to starve Indigenous people in the Great Plains into submission, he said. But the federal government stood by and refused to prevent the wasteful destruction of bison by private white hunters and then welcomed the result of the near extinction of the species: Indigenous peoples surrender to the reservation system. Bison skulls await industrial processing in Michigan in 1892. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library and Wikimedia Commons) Gen. William Sherman, who commanded the U.S. Army in the region, negotiated treaties with groups of Indigenous peoples in the Great Plains in the late 1860s, Isenberg said. The U.S. agreed to allow Native Americans to occupy large parts of the Great Plains so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase. Not long after those treaties were negotiated, Isenberg said, Sherman wrote a letter saying, it will not be long before all of the buffalos are extinct near and between the railroads. By 1873, welcoming the extinction of buffalo to suppress Indigenous peoples had become de facto government policy, Isenberg said. In an 1872 report, Interior Secretary Columbus Delanowrotethat the buffalos disappearance must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs, and establish themselves in permanent homes. Although the decimation of the buffalo population was ultimately the work of private hunters, the idea that destroying bison was a way to force the surrender of Indigenous people in the Great Plains was quite overt, Isenberg said. While there is concern about global food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, experts told PolitiFact in April that the U.S. isless vulnerableto food shortages than poorer nations that rely largely on imports. The U.S. food system has a good level of self-sufficiency, so currently, it is hard to imagine empty shelves in grocery stores, said Ohio State University agricultural economist Seungki Lee. And though claims have surfaced suggesting the U.S. government isintentionallycreatingfood shortages, we have found there is no evidence to back that up. A number of factors havecontributed tothe U.S. baby formula shortage, including arecallby a major U.S. manufacturer, existing supply chainissuesassociated with the COVID-19 pandemic and thehighlyconcentratednature of the formula market. View of almost empty baby formula shelves at a Duane Reade in New York City on May 11, 2022. (AP) A post claimed that the U.S. governments inaction over buffalo killing that harmed Native American populations in the 1800s shows it is now is creating food shortages so that Americans are more dependent on the government. Millions of buffalo were killed by hunters in the late 1800s as part of a de facto government policy meant to force Native Americans in the Great Plains to abandon their customs and accept the reservation system. This racist history, however, does not prove that the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages to force government dependence. We found no evidence to support that claim. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: What can parents do if they cant find baby formula in stores? Former Lt. Governor Robert Duffy pennedan op-edpiece in the Rochester Business Journal urging upstate lawmakers to form their own caucus. Doing so would help them press upstate issues in a state legislature dominated by downstate lawmakers. But upstate New York breaking from downstate entirely? Duffy called the idea ludicrous. If we ever did that, the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country, Duffy claimed. We do count on downstate to carry much of the load for the economic health of New York. Calls for upstate to secede from New York State are not new. But secession gained steam last year when upstate advocates pitched the idea at aprotestin the Southern Tier. Some were angry over gun control laws passed in 2013. Others were upset by the ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, because they believe the gas drilling process would boost that regions struggling economy. One of the leading secession proponents, the Divide NYS Caucus, hopes for momentum to build ahead of a future Constitutional Convention in New York State. Voters will decide whether to hold a convention in the 2017 general election. Downstate hasa bigger populationthan upstate. The Assembly is comfortably in the hands of lawmakers from New York City and the surrounding area, most of whom are Democrats. The State Senate, meanwhile, is controlled by Republicans, mostly from upstate and Long Island. Is Duffy right? Would upstates economy rank low on its own? The Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce was not able to tell us which economic indicators Duffy was referring to. We looked at two indicators typically used to measure the economy - unemployment and wages - to check his claim. The unemployment scorecard As ofJuly, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Thats better than the national average of 4.9 percent. But New York State still ranks 25th in the nation, tied with three other states. Duffy says the line dividing upstate from downstate is the same used in this yearsminimum wage hike. In that deal, New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County were given a different timeline to reach the higher wage than the rest of the state. Our analysis uses the same method: We define upstate as everything north of New York City except for Westchester County. Theres no data publicly available that shows unemployment for this definition of upstate. We used county-level data from state and federal databases to evaluate Duffys claim. The unemployment rate in upstate New York is 4.6 percent, according to the latest data from the state Department of Labor. That number is an average of thecountiesweve defined as upstate. Thats better than the statewide average and would rank 23rd in the nation - ahead of the statewide ranking. The wage scorecard Income per capita is different than the average wage. It measures how much money someone takes in, whether its earned at a job or not, instead of just measuring how much a job pays. We looked at both. In upstate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita income was $40,123 at the end of 2014, the latest county-level data. Upstate would have ranked 37th in the nation that year, below the national average of $46,049. New York State as a whole rankedfifththat year. As for wages, only Washington, D.C., had a higher average wage than New York States $67,521. The national average is $52,942. The average wage upstate was $42,287 by the end of 2015, according todatafrom the U.S. Department of Labor. If it was its own state, upstate would rank 44th for wages, ahead of South Carolina but behind New Mexico. Our ruling Duffy wrote in the Rochester Business Journal that the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country if the region split from downstate. We compared national data on unemployment and wages to county-level data to rate his claim. With Duffys definition of upstate New York, unemployment is close to the national average while wages and income are among the lowest in the country according to the latest data. We rate this claim as Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fa7c54fa-de00-4abc-9ed1-8e386ceaf46c Claim:  The U.S. government prohibits high mileage Volkswagen Passat automobiles from being purchased by U.S. customers.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2012] VW Passat 78.5 MPG in the UK  Below is an email about the VW Passat that is made in the USA which gets over 70MPG but is not allow to be sold in the USA.  Just one more Washington Red Flag.I have included a short youtube video and a link to VW UK web site which confirms video is correct. Checked out VW web site and you can order any car they have for sale unless you are a US Citizen. As a US Citizen VW will not deliver the higher mileage cars they manufacture in the US to US Citizens. This is true and can be verified by just trying to buy one of these cars with the blue motion engine for shipment from the US to any destination in the US. I didnt go to the Ford UK web site to check out Ford but Rick has and he says Ford has several models for sale manufactured in the US with mileage of better than 71 miles per gallon on the highway that also are available for sale in Europe but not the US.  VW Web Site: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/ https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/  Origins:  May 2012 saw the circulation of the message cited above, one which claimed that Volkswagen Passat vehicles with 70+ miles per gallon (MPG) figures manufactured in the U.S. were readily available in the UK, but U.S. government regulations prohibited their being sold to U.S. customers.  These claims appear to be misleading, however. First of all, a UK gallon is not the equivalent of a U.S. gallon: 1 UK gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallons, so MPG figures for automobiles in the UK are inflated by 20% relative to U.S. figures.  Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for determining average mileage ratings is generally more stringent than the process used  in other countries, so EPA ratings tend to be on the conservative side.  Therefore, taking both factors into consideration, a car rated at 70 MPG in the UK would likely be EPA rated somewhere around the mid- to high-40 MPG range.  Second, we found no evidence of U.S. government regulations that would prohibit the sale of automobiles such as the referenced Volkswagen Passat in the United states solely because of their mileage ratings.  In general, when an automobile manufacturer offers a particular model of vehicle in other parts of the world but not the U.S., it's because that model has features that don't appeal to U.S. buyers or because the model does not meet U.S. safety or environmental standards.  In the case of the Volkswagen Passat models mentioned here, their lack of availability in the U.S. is likely due to a combination of those factors. Others have noted that U.S. consumers tend to focus less on mileage and prefer gasoline-powered cars with automatic transmissions and larger, higher-performance engines, but the UK version of the Passat cited here is a diesel-powered car with a manual transmission and a smaller, lower-performing engine: The UK Passat engine is very small (the 0-60 time is 12.5 seconds with a manual transmission) and most Americans won't accept such poor performance. Diesel fuel doesn't have a tax-preferred status here in the U.S. either, and the engine is probably at a premium cost due to new technology. What's more is that vehicles in the UK (but not the U.S.) are taxed by carbon emission, so vehicles in the UK are sold with a much wider choice of engines, usually including diesels and far smaller engines than are available for these vehicles in the U.S., because there is a high cost of operating the vehicle already (i.e., higher fuel prices) and these engines minimize the carbon tax portion. The dynamics of car ownership and manufacturing cars in the US versus the UK is vastly different: it's not really the regulations that are to blame.  Manufacturers don't bother to get U.S. EPA certifications because they know that the demand isn't there, especially right now when the demand is for hybrid (or at the really high end, electric). I doubt that such a car would be viable to sell: people in the U.S. don't put much stock in to gas mileage in comparison to power demands. If you are going to charge a premium, you have to offer something noticeably different, and diesel probably isn't going to pass muster for most folks.  Diesel vehicles in the U.S. have a bad reputation. Also, as reported in a Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) article on this topic, a Manager of Product and Technology Communications for Volkswagen of America Inc. stated that: article VW used to sell the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe here in the US. But it didn't sell very well. It was too expensive and too small in the mid-size sedan segment. So they came up with a larger version with a better price point; and of course the size effects the mileage. Volkswagen's response to our query was non-committal, stating only that they could not say when Bluemotion technology vehicles like the UK version of the Passat would be available in the U.S. We recognize that in this current economic climate, the desires of the driving public have changed.  Many consumers have realized that efficiency and economy are the true values of an automobile. Emissions standards have increased, and we are working to be both ecologically responsible and provide fuel efficient vehicles people want. VW continues to research all options for fuel efficiency. We have no further information at this time if, or when the Bluemotion technology will be available in the US. Last updated:  14 May 2012 In November 2021, rumors claiming that an unusual number of athletes had fainted or collapsed in the last year were widely circulated online. These rumors were often accompanied by fear-mongering captions that warned people against receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One video, for example, was accompanied by messages such as "Not normal ... Boost at your own [peril]," "#ATHLETES IN ALL SPORTS ARE DROPPING DEAD AND THE MASTERS FORCE VACCINES ON US ALL," and "Vaccines dropping them daily. Sick world." Not normal ... Boost at your own [peril] #ATHLETES IN ALL SPORTS ARE DROPPING DEAD AND THE MASTERS FORCE VACCINES ON US ALL Vaccines dropping them daily. Sick world This video does not show vaccine injuries or people fainting due to the COVID-19 vaccine. While this video shows real incidents from 2021, none of these incidents has been connected to the COVID-19 vaccine, other plausible explanations (such as dehydration or heat exhaustion) have been offered for these incidents, and a few of the clips in this video show athletes who were not vaccinated. There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine has resulted in an increase in fainting incidents. The above-displayed video features seven fainting incidents. We've been able to source six of the seven clips. None of the fainting incidents we were able to find more information on were caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Here's what these clips show, starting with the first one:   The first clip shows Denmark's Christian Eriksen collapsing during the Euro 2020 in June 2021 after suffering a cardiac arrest. While this incident has been used by anti-vaxxers to stir up fear over the COVID-19 vaccine, Eriksen was not vaccinated. Inter Milan team director Giuseppe Marotta said: "He didn't have COVID and wasn't vaccinated either." Giuseppe Marotta said   The second clip shows Chinelle Henry and Chedean Nation, two West Indies cricket players who fainted during a match in July 2021. While both players were taken off the field in stretchers, neither required hospitalization.; While an exact cause for this incident was not given, labeling this a vaccine injury is pure speculation. Furthermore, both players returned to the field a few days later to compete. returned to the field Both players had collapsed on the field in separate incidents during the second T20I on Friday, but were back with the team on Sunday, the day of the third game. In separate messages posted on Twitter, both said they didn't have any hospital stay or restrictions imposed on them. "I just want to thank you guys for all your concern and well wishes, and I am doing well. No hospital stay, no restrictions. Now I'm just focused on going out there and getting the series 3-nil," Henry said.   The third clip shows Moussa Dembele, a striker for Atletico Madrid, who collapsed during training in March 2021. Diario AS reported that Dembele fainted after a "sudden drop in blood pressure" but that there were no other complications. Dembele was not hospitalized and after being examined by the team's doctors drove his own car home from the field. There's no evidence that this incident was related to a COVID-19 vaccine. It's worth noting, however, that Dembele tested positive for COVID-19 a month before this incident. Goal.com reported: Goal.com reported The former Lyon forward is the fourth player with the Liga leaders to have to self-isolate, and could miss the Champions League clash with Chelsea Atletico Madrid have received their second coronavirus blow in as many days after striker Moussa Dembele tested positive, following team-mate Joao Felix.   The fourth clip shows Jack Draper, a young British tennis player, suffering from a bout of heat exhaustion at the Miami Open in March 2021. As was the case with Dembele above, it's possible that COVID-19, not a COVID-19 vaccine, contributed to this medical episode. Draper said that he was diagnosed with coronavirus in January and that the lingering effects of the disease, in addition to the heat, may have contributed to his collapse. Draper said: Draper said "I was out for two weeks with COVID in January ... I didn't move a muscle and that was after pre-season as well, so I put in a really good pre-season and then I didn't play so it's been a rough start to the year [...] I got it, it's obviously an extremely aggressive virus and you can catch it from anywhere, but I got it and it did affect me quite badly for seven days. I had bad symptoms and then I recovered pretty quickly from there, but it definitely had an effect on me. I've put in loads of great training since then, so it's no excuse, but did it have an effect on me at the time? Probably. With a lot of these things you don't know how much it really affects you."   The fifth clip in this video is the one we know the least about. It doesn't appear to be a professional badminton event. Rather, this clip appears to come from a security camera at a recreational facility. Project Comprova, a collaboration of more than a dozen news outlets around Brazil, found that this video was likely shot somewhere in Malaysia. Little is known about this incident at the time, however, so we can't say exactly what happened here. What we can say, however, is that those claiming that this shows a "vaccine injury" are doing so without evidence. Project Comprova The sixth clip shows Charles Bulu, a Ghanaian referee, collapsing in March 2021 during the final minutes of an Africa Cup match between Cote d'Ivoire and Ethiopia. Goal.com reported that Bulu was initially appointed as the fourth official, but had to step in as the main referee after a colleague tested positive for COVID-19. Goal.com reported Bulu, who was treated at a hospital according to theGhana Football Association, told the Daily Graphic, a Ghanaian newspaper, that the incident was related to a poor diet, a lack of sleep, dehydration, and excessive heat: Ghana Football Association, I didn't eat quite well both at breakfast and lunch, hoping that I would rather take in some banana just before the game, only to arrive at the Match Officials' dressing room to realise that no such provision had been made, despite we requesting for it. [...] I could not take in as much water as my body needed and with the heat and intensity of the game, I began feeling dehydrated by the 68th minute, but unfortunately, there was no Fourth Referee to step in. I was hoping I could hold on till the next water break which was around the 75th minute, but before then I just blacked out. The final clip in this video compilation shows Bert Smith as he collapsed during a March Madness game in April 2021. Smith was taken off the floor on a stretcher but he didn't require immediate hospitalization. Hours later, as a precaution, Smith decided to visit a hospital, fearing that he may have a concussion. While smith did not have a concussion, the doctors did find that he had a blood clot. The Indy Star reported that Smith was put on blood thinners and was released a few days later. It's unclear what caused the blood clot, but Smith did test positive for COVID-19 a few months earlier. reported Smith was admitted into Methodist and put on blood thinners. Two days later, clot gone, he was discharged. Where did it come from? Nobody can say. Smith tested positive for the coronavirus in August, but doctors can't say whether there's a correlation between COVID-19 and his blood clot. An athlete fainting is not a particularly rare occurrence. According to The Athletic, a player faints on the football pitch every four days. But is the problem getting worse due to COVID-19? player faints on the football pitch every four days While the above-displayed video does not show athletes who fainted or collapsed from the COVID-19 vaccine, it does show various athletes fainting in 2021. There's not enough evidence to say whether or not fainting incidents are becoming more common due to the pandemic, but here are a few things to consider. First, people infected by COVID-19 mayexperience "long Covid," or lingering symptoms from the disease after the initial infection subsides. These symptoms may include shortness of breath, fatigue, and heart palpitations. Second, one of the rare side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine is Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, told Reuters that this is a rare side effect and its symptoms are often mild. symptoms may include shortness "Myocarditis or pericarditis remains a very rare potential risk with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and the events reported are typically mild with individuals usually recovering within a short time with standard treatment and rest. The current evidence does not suggest that sporting exercise is a contributing risk for these very rare events." Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, told the Telegraph that athletes diagnosed with COVID-19 are at a greater risk of having a heart condition than those who get the COVID-19 vaccine: Telegraph "Whilst vaccine induced myocarditis has been reported in children and young adults following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, it's actually quite rare ... The risk of myocarditis, myocarditis-type injury to the heart, or other cardiovascular complications is much greater if you get Covid-19. That's why it's important to avoid Covid-19, and the best way to do that is to stay up-to-date with your vaccine doses. At the moment, there's not enough evidence to suggest any connection between COVID-19, or COVID-19 vaccines, and an increase in fainting incidents. When Reuters asked FIFA about this rumor, the soccer organization said that it was not "aware of a rise in episodes of cardiac arrests" and that there had not been any cases "flagged in relation to individuals receiving a COVID vaccine." 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 Association, Ghana Football. Public Announcement: Referee Charles Bulu Is Doing Well. https://www.ghanafa.org/public-announcement-referee-charles-bulu-is-doing-well. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "British Teenager Jack Draper Collapses with Apparent Heat Exhaustion at Miami Open." Sky Sports, https://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/12256229/british-teenager-jack-draper-collapses-with-apparent-heat-exhaustion-at-miami-open. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. Charles Bulu: Referee in Stable Condition after Collapsing during Cote d'Ivoire versus Ethiopia Match | Goal.Com. https://www.goal.com/en/news/charles-bulu-fifa-referee-in-stable-condition-after/140om1o7bbfd41r6tnuue97tra. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. ---. https://www.goal.com/en/news/charles-bulu-fifa-referee-in-stable-condition-after/140om1o7bbfd41r6tnuue97tra. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "Chinelle Henry, Chedean Nation Taken to Hospital after Collapsing during West Indies-Pakistan Women's T20I." ESPNcricinfo, https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/wi-vs-pak-2nd-women-s-t20-chinelle-henry-chedean-nation-taken-to-hospital-after-collapsing-during-match-1268505. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "Dembl sufre un desmayo durante el entrenamiento." AS.com, 23 Mar. 2021, https://as.com/futbol/2021/03/23/primera/1616520284_574257.html. "Fact Check-No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Are Linked to Athletes Collapsing or Dying from Myocarditis." Reuters, 29 Nov. 2021. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-sport-idUSL1N2SK160. "---." Reuters, 29 Nov. 2021. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-sport-idUSL1N2SK160. "I'm Fully Fit and Back on Duty  Referee Bulu." Graphic Online, https://www.graphic.com.gh/sports/sports-news/i-m-fully-fit-and-back-on-duty-referee-bulu.html. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "Inter Director Says Eriksen Did Not Have COVID and Was Not Vaccinated." Reuters, 13 June 2021, https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/eriksens-former-cardiologist-says-he-had-no-history-heart-concerns-2021-06-13/. Millar, Colin. "Moussa Dembele Returns to Atletico Madrid Training Days after Collapsing." Football Espana, 26 Mar. 2021, https://www.football-espana.net/2021/03/26/moussa-dembele-returns-to-atletico-madrid-training-days-after-collapsing. Morgan, Tom. "Covid a More Likely Cause of Surge in Footballers Collapsing with Heart Problems than Vaccines, Scientists Believe." The Telegraph, 26 Nov. 2021. www.telegraph.co.uk, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/11/26/scientists-rebuff-irresponsible-claims-pundits-say-covid-likely/. "Moussa Dembele: Atletico Madrid Striker Collapses in Training and Requires Medical Attention." Sky Sports, https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11838/12254909/moussa-dembele-atletico-madrid-striker-collapses-in-training-and-requires-medical-attention. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "No h relao entre casos de mal sbito em atletas e vacinas contra covid." Projeto Comprova, https://projetocomprova.com.br/publicaes/nao-ha-relacao-entre-casos-de-mal-subito-em-atletas-e-vacinas-contra-covid/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "---." Estado Verifica, https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/estadao-verifica/atletas-mal-subito-vacina/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "NCAA Tournament Referee Who Collapsed during Elite Eight Game Says Medical Incident Saved His Life." CBSSports.Com, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-tournament-referee-who-collapsed-during-elite-eight-game-says-medical-incident-saved-his-life/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. "Referee Bert Smith's Fall in Men's NCAA Tournament Game Didn't Kill Him. It Saved His Life." Indianapolis Star, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2021/04/09/ncaa-tournament-referee-bert-smith-collapse-game-saved-life/7148461002/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. Taylor, Daniel. "A Man Collapses on a Football Pitch Once Every Four Days. Is the Threat of Cardiac Arrest Getting Worse?" The Athletic, https://theathletic.com/2963733/2021/11/19/someone-collapses-football-pitch-every-four-days/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021. An image purportedly showing a billboard advertisement for Trump Tower Mumbai  which shows a photograph of the American businessman and President-elect alongside the slogan "There is only one way to live" with a group of apparently homeless people sitting and sleeping in the street beneath it  was circulated on social media in December 2016:     Embed from Getty Images A billboard for the upcoming luxury residential apartment complex Trump Tower Mumbai, which bears the name of billionaire real estate tycoon and US presidential hopeful Donald Trump, is seen next to a busy road in Mumbai on June 3, 2016. Trump, the Republican frontrunner in the US presidential elections, to his fans, is the definition of American success, the cut-throat tycoon who can magically fix all that ails a nation no longer sure of its place in the world, and home to an increasingly frustrated white working and middle class. But there is barely a corner of Manhattan that the Trump Organization hasn't conquered with luxury buildings. Its portfolio of hotels, golf courses, casinos and luxury estates straddles the world, from California to Mumbai. A photograph published by India news outlet Mid-Day in May 2016 also shows that a similar billboard in the same area displayed the slogan "Trump is back" rather than "There is only one way to live": Mid-Day    We uncovered an image that was posted on 21 December 2016 by Muhammad Sabir, the founder of Slumabad (an organization that works to give homeless children access to education and economic opportunities) along with a message about income inequality: posted Muhammad Sabir Slumabad This photo tells a story of poverty, inequality and deprivation of basic human dignity and rights. It puts all human development in question and asks basic simple questions from us: Can we call ourselves civilized, while we see our fellow human beings living on footpath like animals? Is there only one way to live left for millions of deprived souls? Let us hope sun also rises for marginalized souls, I mean sun of equality, development and justice. While many people who viewed the image were initially skeptical about its authenticity (including us), the image is real. It was originally posted to Facebook on 27 August 2014 by Paul Needham, who took the photograph: Needham also sent us a high-resolution, uncropped version of the photograph to prove its authenticity:   He also sent us different photographs of the same scene:     Note: The original version of this article said that the image was not real, based on our initial inability to track down its photographer or source. We have now heard from him and updated our article accordingly. Singh, Varun.  "Donald Trump Is Mumbai builder's Latest Poster Boy."
  Mid-Day.  31 May 2016. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014