Did Ron Paul Call Congress "A Bunch of Psychopathic Authoritarians"?
A popular meme asserts that Ron Paul, a Republican/Libertarian who was the U.S. Representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district and a presidential candidate, once to referred his U.S. Congress colleagues as a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians:   Ron Paul supposedly made such a pronouncement during his final speech to the House of Representatives on 14 November 2012. In that speech, he affirmed his commitment to limited government and sought to put the history of the country (and his career) into a narrative about retaining personal liberty in the face of an expanding federal government. Paul offered the argument that the use of government to promote social change can lead to the immoral use of force, even when intended to promote humanitarian ideals (emphasis ours): final speech Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of mans political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned -- or especially when well-intentioned -- the results are dismal. While it is true that Paul used the phrase psychopathic authoritarians, he was referring not to Congress only or specifically, but -- along with religious groups and secular organizations -- to people who might be predisposed to endorse government-initiated change. Although it is undoubtedly true that some members of Congress, either implicitly or explicitly, support the use of government to effect social change, the notion that Paul was calling everyone serving in the U.S. Congress "a bunch of authoritarian psychopaths to their faces" is a misleading reduction of context. psychopathic authoritarians Campaign for Liberty.  "Transcript of Farewell Address"
  14 November 2012.
Claim:  A college student bursts into his dorm room naked to play a crude prank on his roommate, not realizing that his girlfriend and her parents are waiting inside the room. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1986] Two roommates had taken to pulling crude pranks on each other in the dorm.  It happened that one lazy Sunday afternoon one of the roommates had gone down the hall from his room to take a shower. His fellow roommate was in the room studying when there was a knock on the door and the showering roommate's father, who had driven down for a visit, came in bringing with him the girlfriend of the showerer and his mother. The folks were quite naturally invited into the room and they commenced to chat. The other roommate was quite taken with the girlfriend, and he did not go and get his friend, likely assuming he would return soon  which he did. He was clad only in a towel, which he threw off as [he] opened the door and barged in; with his hand gripping his penis, he screamed, "Bang, bang; you're dead!"1  Variations:   Some versions (such as the example quoted above) suggest that the second roommate deliberately does not give the returning showerer any warning because he has designs on his roommate's girlfriend himself.  In another variation the showerer has two roommates and thus is not tipped off by the sounds of conversation issuing from the room when he returns.  Some variants involve the showerer wrapping his towel around his head and shouting with a foreign accent as he enters the room.  One variant describes a student who strips naked and hides inside the closet of his girlfriend's dormitory room.  He jumps out of the closet when he hears someone enter the room, only to discover that the new arrival is the fire inspectors and not his girlfriend. Origins:   A   quaint legend from an era when same-sex dormitories and chaperoned visits were the norm, and impressing your girl's parents was the most important part of the dating ritual (after impressing your girl, of course).  Embarrassing yourself in front of your girl's parents (and your girl to boot) was the ultimate in dating disasters, and what could be more humiliating than being caught acting goofy while naked? In the following years, when we began to admit that young, unmarried people actually engaged in sex (but we still didn't condone it), we developed a few answers to that "What could be more humiliating?" question.  We had the Blind Date legend, in which a young man's intentions of engaging in sex were inadvertently revealed to his date's father, then the Fete Worse Than Death legend, in which both boyfriend and girlfriend are caught participating in sexual foreplay in front of a host of friends and relatives. Blind Date Fete This legend is now a mostly moribund relic of a time when sexual attitudes were less liberal, superseded by tales of adults caught engaging in "unusual" (and formerly unmentionable) sexual practices which still have the power to shock or titillate some listeners. Last updated:  16 June 2011 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (pp. 305-307). The Baby Train    Zelkind, Andrew.  "Fun on Campus."   News-Chronicle.  12 April 1986  (p. B3). The Big Book of Urban Legends 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 On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) 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 Since the start of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic. scam Here's an example of the scam we found circulating on Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy reasons:   The text of the scam read, "Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site. phishing Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers. no longer In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails. scams stated During the build-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump was often criticized for his inability to articulate any goals that he expected or hoped to accomplish during a second term in office if he were reelected.  criticized A quote meme from late August 2020 reflected that criticism, putatively quoting the president as saying nothing concrete about his plans for the next four years other than that he would continue doing what he was already doing and would have "other things on [his] plate":  This meme accurately reproduced a statement from Trump, although the meme's presenting it without any context made it sound like the statement was the only thing the president said about his plans for the next for years, which was not the case. On Aug. 26, The New York Times conducted a 40-minute interview with Trump over the telephone, covering his past three-plus years in office and the upcoming election. The Times' resulting article noted that the president had "strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be" and quoted him as uttering the words reproduced in the above meme, but it also referenced Trump's offering "a list of what he has done and would continue to do," so the president did in fact provide some specifics about what he had, and wanted to, accomplish: article Beyond more of the same, [Trump] has strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be. Asked at various points, even by friendly interviewers on Fox News, he has offered meandering answers. His fellow Republicans seem no more certain. They therefore dispensed with a party platform altogether, opting instead for a simple resolution of loyalty to the president. In the interview, Mr. Trump rattled off a list of what he has done and would continue to do, like increasing military spending, cutting taxes, eliminating regulations, reinforcing the border and appointing conservative judges. But so I think, I think it would be, I think it would be very, very, I think wed have a very, very solid, we would continue what were doing, wed solidify what weve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done, he said. Baker, Peter.  "Instead of Evolving as President, Trump Has Bent the Job to His Will."
  The New York Times.  27 August 2020. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, an email from U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign alleged millions of mail-in ballots were erroneously sent to people who did not request them. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them," claimed a Nov. 16 email obtained by Snopes.   The claim implied people "who never asked" for mail-in ballots wrongfully received them, and, because of that, the election was tainted with fraud and Americans should reject the results of the popular vote. Firstly, let this fact be clear: Americans have been voting by mail since the Civil War in the 1860s. In the modern era, the majority of states for years have allowed anyone to request an absentee ballot and submit it via mail  while others only allowed people to vote absentee if they provided a qualifying reason for why they cant make it to a designated polling station on Election Day, such as illness, physical disabilities, travel, or work. Meanwhile, five states allowed all eligible voters in all elections to submit ballots entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  while other states permitted local jurisdictions to run elections by mail under certain circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, put new pressure on the country to expand existing vote-by-mail systems to avoid spreading the virus at polls. COVID-19 pandemic Several states passed new laws to allow all eligible residents to vote by mail, per the National League of State Legislature's compilation of state laws governing mail-in voting in 2020, or added "COVID-19" to their list of reasonable excuses to request an absentee ballot. National League of State Legislature's compilation But at the core of Trump's allegation about "millions of mail-in ballots" being sent to people who didn't want them were states' varying rules regarding ballot applications. Most states  but not all of them  require voters to submit an application that expresses their desire to vote by mail in order to receive the official ballot paperwork to cast a vote. Additionally, some states permit voters to apply for "permanent absentee ballot status" so they automatically receive ballots via mail each election and do not need to submit applications for each one. The NLSL stated: The ways in which voters may request a ballot vary, as do the deadlines for submitting the application to the local election official. Some states regulate who can distribute or collect applications for delivered ballots as well. Once the application is received, states have a process for verifying that the application did indeed come from the intended voter before sending a ballot to that voter. That said, the handful of states that have for years conducted elections entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  send ballots to every person listed in their respective databases of eligible voters, no application necessary. With COVID-19, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont also conducted the 2020 presidential election that way  every eligible resident received a ballot in the mail to vote for Trump or Biden, per NLSL. Additionally, Montana allowed counties to decide whether they would conduct the election that way, no requests for mail-in ballots necessary. So, considering the number of registered voters in those 10 states (there are more than 4.2 million in Colorado alone) there's some truth to the claim "millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them" in the Trump-Biden race, if you consider the application process the step in which people "ask for" ballots.  Colorado However, that argument is flawed by the fact that recipients of those ballots at one point registered to vote. And, in at least a handful of the 10 states, by registering to vote, they were joining a vote-by-mail system that sends ballots without applications first. In short, it is false to imply that millions of ballots were improperly or erroneously mailed in the 2020 election, or suggest that the system was a nefarious scheme to undermine Trump. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign attempting to sound the alarm on a fictional election conspiracy asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. Brendan Fischer tweeted In sum, while it was true millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who did not submit applications for them in the 2020 presidential election, it was a mischaracterization of states' election laws to frame that fact as evidence of impropriety or fraud. Rather, the ballots were sent to registered voters in accordance with state laws. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." In March 2023, several media outlets and conservative pundits began sharing images of what they described as a deleted 2018 tweet from climate activist Greta Thunberg's account. That tweet, quoting from a now-deleted article, said, "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." tweet  Climate skeptics jumped on the deleted tweet as evidence of climate alarmism, insinuating that Thunberg's tweet suggested that, if climate science was accurate, humanity should be extinct at the time of this reporting. insinuating  Several problems exist with that narrative. First and foremost is the fact that the tweet and the article it linked to never said that humanity would vanish in 2023. Second, and also of crucial importance, is the "top climate scientist" referenced in the underlying article never actually said what these reports asserted him to have said. Here, Snopes untangles the controversy.  Yes, on June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted a link to a now deleted article on the website GritPost bearing the headline, "Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023." The GritPost article rehashed content originally published on Forbes about a seminar given by James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric science, at the University of Chicago in 2018. tweeted deleted article content As reported by Forbes, Anderson's talk focused on the need for a massive effort to curb climate change over the next five years: reported People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industryan acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles. This has to be done, Anderson added, within the next five years. The assertion that humanity would collapse as a result of this inaction stemmed from statements Forbes attributed to Anderson about declining Arctic ice: Forbes attributed "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years. "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." Based on Internet Archive records, the GritPost article to which Thunberg linked was deleted sometime after July 2020. Thunberg deleted her tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. Thunberg did not respond to Snopes' request for comment. July 2020 sometime after The claim that a top climate scientist allegedly predicted the collapse of humanity in 2023 has been popular with climate skeptics since Anderson allegedly made the claim in 2018. The Forbes article and Thunberg tweet were both widely lampooned for their alarmism at the time. When 2023 came and humanity still persisted, these same actors were ready to relish the moment, as summarized by Newsweek: summarized [Charlie] Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, on March 12, 2023, wrote: "One of the best headlines of the year so far... 'Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying world will end in 2023 after world does not end.'" Filmmaker [Dinesh] D'Souza, on March 12, 2023, added: "Climate Radical Greta Thunberg Caught Red Handed: Deletes 2018 Tweet That Says World Will End Without Action by 2023." [Brigitte] Gabriel, founder of ACT for America, on March 11, 2023, also said: "Greta Thunberg deleted this tweet because it exposes her for being a fraud. Make sure the entire world sees it." All of these tweets misread the claim repeated by Thunberg, GritPost, and Forbes. The point, as these individuals or outlets reported, was that humanity had to reach certain carbon emission benchmarks by 2023, or else catastrophic events decades to centuries later would be guaranteed because of feedbacks in the climate system. As Forbes described: The answer [to the question "can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover"] is no in part because of what scientists call feedbacks, some of the ways the earth responds to warming. Among those feedbacks is the release of methane currently trapped in permafrost and under the sea, which will exacerbate warming. Another is the pending collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which Anderson said will raise sea level by 7 meters (about 23 feet). Conflating the years scientists claim to be so-called "tipping points" with the year in which the end result of those tipping points is supposed to emerge is a rhetorical tactic common in climate-denial circles. Snopes has previously reported on the imprecise quotes contained in a 1989 Associated Press article misused in a similar way. a similar way Regardless of any Thunberg tweet, the claim allegedly made by Anderson that "the chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero" has also recently been shared as evidence of climate "fraud," suggesting Anderson made a failed prediction:  The Forbes article was the only place in which the content of Anderson's seminar was reported, but Anderson toldThe Associated Press that he never made that argument, and that his words were wildly misinterpreted in media reports: Anderson told "That is a complete fabrication of what I said," Anderson wrote, referring to the claims he said humanity would be wiped out in five years. He said that during the seminar, he was displaying the most recent observations of Arctic sea ice volume  specifically the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean  and made the statement that "the current observed rate of floating ice loss volume, there will be no floating ice remaining by 2022." The focus of the statement was on the floating ice volume and the observed rate of disappearance at that time, he said. "Thus the statement was clear to those in attendance that the reference was to floating ice volume in the data shown on the slide, not arctic ice in general," Anderson clarified, adding, "so, the 'wiping out of humanity by 2022' is a total distortion of what I said or meant at the University of Chicago colloquium in 2018. I would never make such a statement." Thunberg deleted a tweet that repeated an imprecise paraphrase of a climate scientist's 2018 seminar talk. While it is factual that she deleted this tweet, claims that the tweet argued humanity would end in 2023 are false. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of truth. McMahon, Jeff. "We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says." Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/. Accessed 17 Mar. 2023. Norton, Tom. "Fact Check: Did Greta Thunberg Delete Claim That Humanity Will End by 2023?" Newsweek, 13 Mar. 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-greta-thunberg-delete-claim-that-humanity-will-end-2023-1787420. "Posts Distort 2018 Greta Thunberg Tweet on Climate Danger." AP NEWS, 16 Mar. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080. Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct If We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023. 1 May 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/.
 Update [3/22/2023]: Updated to read that Thunberg deleted the tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."   [New York] Daily News.  14 September 1999  (p. 5).     Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Sweden is often the subject of fierce political debate, with some championing it as an example of a well-run, successful social democracy, while others point to what they see as problems endemic throughout the country. It has also long been the target of misinformation and confusion relating to its integration and assimilation of immigrants, something we have written about in detail in the past.  in detail In the spring of 2018, a meme went viral which presented some of the positive aspects of Swedish society, in particular its health care system. On 25 April, the "Medicare for All" Facebook page shared this meme: meme I live in Sweden. We have social security, affordable health care, strict gun laws, 5 weeks paid annual leave, and [one] year maternity leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10. Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. We're not a communist country, or even strictly socialist. We're socio-democratic, and our freedoms are not inhibited.    The meme cites the Twitter handle @SweResistance as its source. In March 2018, that Twitter user posted a series of tweets making the case for Swedish health care:  posted For example, health care can cost a maximum of around $130 per year for visits to health care centrals etc, hospital.nights costs $12 per night with a $175 roof per month. Prescription drugs have a yearly roof of $250. #healthcare #healthcare  Caroline ?????? #FBR #RESIST (@SweResistance) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018  It appears that "Medicare for All" actually changed some of the details in its meme for reasons unknown. We have fact-checked the claims made in the meme, rather than in @SweResistance's Twitter thread.  Strict gun laws While there is no objective definition of "strict," Sweden does stringently regulate gun ownership and usage by comparison with the United States. According to an analysis by GunPolicy.org, a research project hosted at the University of Sydney, Australia: analysis 5 weeks paid annual leave According to Section 4 of the Annual Leave Act, employees are legally entitled to 25 days' paid leave each year. Section 4 One year's maternity leave This is not quite right. Sweden doesn't have maternity leave, exactly; instead, it offers its inhabitants exceptionally generous parental leave. Parents of a newly born or adopted child are entitled to 480 combined days of parental leave, which they can split between themselves in whatever way they choose regardless of gender. In 2017, fathers claimed 28 percent of all parental leave days, according to government statistics.  statistics For 390 of the 480 days available, parents are paid at a rate of almost 80 percent their normal salary, according to Swedish government figures. The parental leave doesn't need to be taken right away, either. Parents in Sweden can continue to take days off until their child turns eight years old. figures The claim of one year of maternity leave ignores the reality of how the Swedish system works, but it is absolutely possible that a new mother  depending on the agreement she has with the child's other parent  could claim 365 days or more paid leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10 This is true. According to official government figures published on the Sweden.se web site, the maximum fee for a hospital visit is 100 Kroner (SEK.) Based on the exchange rate on 26 April 2018, that's $11.56, which is closer to the $12 stated by @SweResistance. figures Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. This is also basically true, although the dollar amount again depends on the exchange rate. According to Swedish government figures, "nobody pays more than SEK 2,200 in a given 12-month period" for prescription medication. (That's the equivalent of $254 as of April 2018.) Again, that's very close to the $250 figure provided by @SweResistance. It's not clear where the figure of $210 originates.  figures Overall, the meme accurately states some of the details of Sweden's social democratic institutions. However, like most politically-charged social media content, it leaves out important context. The most obvious thing to know about Sweden's famous "cradle to grave" social safety net and good working conditions is that they are largely paid for by Sweden's equally famous high taxes. Nonetheless, polling shows that Swedes are largely satisfied with the public services they receive in return. high taxes. satisfied Palma, Bethania. "Crime in Sweden, Part I: Is Sweden the 'Rape Capital' of Europe?"
 Snopes.com. 29 March 2017. Government of Sweden. "Annual Leave Act."
 Government of Sweden. Accessed 26 April 2018. TT/The Local. "Dads in Sweden Took More Paternity Leave Than Ever in 2017."
 TT/The Local. 17 January 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "10 Things That Make Sweden Family-Friendly."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "Health Care in Sweden."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Pomerleau, Kyle. "How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending."
 Tax Foundation. 10 June 2015. TT/The Local. "Here's How Happy Swedes Are With the Services Their Taxes Pay For."
 TT/The Local. 16 December 2016.