Did Teen Activist Greta Thunberg Tell China to Stop Using Chopsticks?
Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun.  highest paid activist actually an actress firing a machine gun In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media: participate  Thunberg did not ask China to "give up" chopsticks.  This rumor has been circulating since at least January 2020. Although it has taken several forms, we've yet to encounter any social media posts pointing to when or where Thunberg allegedly made this request.  One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks.  Geoloong no mention Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg. If this was a genuine quote, you'd expect this story would have been shared (at least initially) by Thunberg's supporters.  Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees. Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year adverse environmental impact If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com. Joe.ks.com. Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation.  implemented a 5% tax BBC News reported: reported The Chinese government is introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests. It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of trees and bamboo plants. The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks. estimated NPR.  "Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit."
  23 September 2019. BBC.  "China Introduces Chopsticks Tax."
  22 March 2006. Lee, Don.  "Chinas Chopstick Tax Seems Dim to Some."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 March 2006. Nuwer, Rachel.  "Disposable Chopsticks Strip Asian Forests."
  The New York Times.  24 October 2011.
State Rep. John Jay Edwardswas a gueston WHJJ's Helen Glover show when the issue came up of requiring motorists to pay a toll to cross the Sakonnet River Bridge, which connects Portsmouth and Tiverton and is a main thoroughfare to and from Aquidneck Island. Edwards represents both towns.It's just another tax on the people who live in East Bay, he said. I'm sure there is going to be a split fare between the people who have a Rhode Island E-ZPass and those who do not. They're saying that 40 percent of the traffic that goes over that is [from] out of state.Glover expressed skepticism over that percentage. I think that's mostly locals commuting for jobs, she said.It sounded like the perfect thing to track down.We called Edwards to find out precisely who they are. He told us he got the information from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and said he had his own doubts about the factoid. I think they may be using it to make it sound more palatable, he said.When we contacted the DOT, spokesman Bryan Lucier, wrote us to say The Director [Michael Lewis] has stated publicly that approximately 40 percent of the traffic is from out of state.Lucier said the percentage comes froma DOT studythat tracked license plate numbers. He told us that 38.2 percent of the cars and trucks traveling southbound -- from Tiverton to Portsmouth -- had out-of-state plates and 31.4 percent going northbound.Average daily out-of-state volume was 35.1 percent, not 40.The traffic count was done on just two days in the middle of winter -- Jan. 26, a Thursday, and Jan. 28, a Saturday. And it was conducted only from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The afternoon rush hour was not included.Among the out-of-state vehicles, 90 percent had Massachusetts license plates, 2 percent were from Connecticut, and 1 percent were from New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey.The bridge currently has an 18-ton weight limit, which requires a lot of trucks to detour around it. Lucier said the expectation is that when the bridge is replaced, truck traffic will increase and that will increase the percentage of out-of-state vehicles using it.Our rulingRep. John Edwards said, They're saying that 40 percent of the traffic that goes over [the Sakonnet River Bridge is from] out of state.The DOT says Edwards is correctly quoting Michael Lewis, who has been saying approximately 40 percent and whose source is a two-day traffic study commissioned by the DOT that concludes that the actual percentage is 35.Clearly, when he was talking to Glover, Edwards was saying that the data wasn't his and he told us, after the fact, that he had doubts about its accuracy. It turns out, he may have reason for skepticism.We rate the statement made by Lewis and repeated by EdwardsMostly True. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership. Campaigning in the final stretch of the presidential election, Hillary Clinton took a brief break from knocking Donald Trumps character to hammer his tax plan. He's taking care of himself, he's taking care of his family, he's taking care of the super wealthy and corporations, Clinton said at a rally in Pittsburgh on Nov. 4, 2016, adding that under Trump, 51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up. Briefly, Trumpstax planwould collapse the seven federal income tax brackets into three (12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent). He would also raise the standard deduction (the amount everyone can deduct from taxable income) but repeal personal exemptions and head of household filing status. Tax analysts have found that Trumps plan would deliver, on average, tax cuts across all income brackets. So how is it possible that single parents would pay more? The Clinton campaign referred us toanalysisof Trumps tax plan from the Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the left-leaning Urban Institute. According to the report, authored by New York University professor Lily Batchelder, about 20 percent of households and more than half of single parents would wind up paying more in federal taxes. How? First, Trumps proposal to increase the standard deduction wouldnt be enough to offset the amount many single parents could have deducted with personal exemptions (which Trump would take away). For example, a single mother with one child can take a$9,350 standard deductionand two $4,050 exemptions, one for herself and one for her child in 2017 under the current system  or $17,450 in exemptions in total. Under Trumps plan, she would be able to take just a $15,000 standard deduction. The end result? That mother would have to pay income tax on an additional $2,450 under Trumps plan. Second, the head of household filing status currently applies to unmarried filers with dependents, and their standard deduction and tax rates are between those of married filers and single filers. Repealing this provision as Trump proposes would require single parents to file as individuals with higher tax rates. Third, Trumps three brackets would increase taxes for many head of household filers. For example, the current lowest bracket is 10 percent, but Trumps lowest bracket is 12 percent. For example, in 2017 a single parent with one child who claims the standard deduction would face a 25 percent tax rate on adjusted gross income between $53,050 and $68,550, compared with just a 15 percent rate under current law, Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center,wroteinForbes. Put it altogether, 51 percent of single parents or about 5.8 million households would see a tax increase under Trumps plan, Batchelder calculated. As our colleagues atFactCheck.org noted, single parents tend to do worse under Trumps plan than under current law. For example, a single parent with an income of $75,000 and two school-age children would see his or her taxes increase by $2,440 or by $1,640 if the family had child care costs that could be deducted under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder. Similarly, a single parent making $50,000 and who had three children would face an increase of $1,188. The Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank, has not released similar analysis. But its director of federal projects, Kyle Pomerleau, found no faults with Batchelders report. . @lilybatchWe were able to replicate many of the numbers in the report. The results seem reasonable to me. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Our ruling Clinton said, under Trump's tax plan, 51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up. Trumps proposal would simplify the federal tax code and provide tax cuts for many. But, analysts say, Trumps plan would make changes that would affect some people negatively. Trumps proposal to eliminate the head of household filing status and personal exemptions would raise federal income taxes for many single parents. We rate Clintons claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/45507710-0102-420f-8e0b-4b12522480ce In February 2021, several readers asked Snopes to examine the authenticity and accuracy of online posts which claimed that Coca-Cola had given its employees diversity training that included slides encouraging them to "try to be less white." On Feb. 19, the Twitter account @LeftyMoment posted a widely shared tweet which contained the caption "This was in Coca-Cola's diversity training" along with an image that appeared to be composed of two screenshots: one showing a presentation slide with the words "Try to be less white"; and the other with a list of "white" traits, explaining that "to be less white" means being "less oppressive," "less arrogant," "less certain" and so on:   Those and other similar images appeared to have been leaked by a Coca-Cola employee to Karlyn Borysenko, a prominent online opponent of critical race theory and many aspects of corporate diversity training, who describes herself on LinkedIn as an organizational pyschologist and "executive/performance coach." LinkedIn Borysenko shared the screenshots on Feb. 19, consistently characterizing them as having been part of required training for Coca-Cola employees. As proof of this, she cited the Coca-Cola logo visible in the top right-hand corner of the screen. shared The screenshots were also shared on the controversial 4Chan thread /pol/, a frequent online source of political disinformation in recent years. Nigel Farage, former leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, mentioned the story in a YouTube video, saying Coca-Cola had "lost their marbles" by "putting their staff through compulsory training on 'How to be less white.'" shared on controversial mentioned The presentation in question is real, and the "try to be less white" slides were authentic. However, the evidence presented by Borysenko and others does not prove that Coca-Cola included the presentation in its required diversity training for employees, and the company has explicitly denied that claim. The slides contained in the widely-shared online posts in February 2021 came from a presentation entitled "Confronting Racism," which featured Robin DiAngelo, a writer and consultant whose work on racism has proven controversial and who has been hired to conduct diversity and anti-racism training for many American companies.  work controversial The course was created by Big Think, an educational video platform, using footage taken from an earlier interview they conducted with DiAngelo. "Confronting Racism" had been available on LinkedIn Learning, but was removed on Feb. 23, on foot of a request by the producers of the course Big Think, and representatives for DiAngelo. Before it was taken down, it carried the following description: available In this course, Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of White Fragility, gives you the vocabulary and practices you need to start confronting racism and unconscious bias at the individual level and throughout your organization. Theres no magic recipe for building an inclusive workplace. Its a process that needs to involve people of color, and that needs to go on for as long as your companys in business. But with these tools at your disposal, youll be well on your way. The slides in question appeared during the "What you can do" section of the course:     Those slides appeared as part of a video, which the screenshots shared widely in February 2021 did not fully reflect. In that section of the video, DiAngelo provides the following narration: I try to be a little less white. I'm really clear that I'm not going to be free of my conditioning and racism is not going to end in my lifetime. The question I ask myself is "How do I do a little less harm?" and "How do I know?" right? Am I, in any given moment, behaving in anti-racist ways? Not "I'm already done, I'm never racist." Not "I'm a terrible person, I'm always racist." In any given moment, how am I doing? And how do I know? And that keeps me humble, and it keeps me accountable. So for me, to do less harm is no small thing. Because it could literally be one more hour on a person of color's life, who didn't have to take home my nonsense and agonize all night long whether it was worth it to talk to me, or they should just suck it up yet again, lest they risk my lashing out in defensiveness. So for me to be "less white" is to be less oppressive, racially. To be less arrogant, to be less certain, to be less defensive, to be less ignorant, quite frankly. To be more humble, to listen, to believe, to break with apathy, to break with white solidarity. It's not easy, it's a lifelong process. But nothing is more rewarding.  LinkedIn Learning is a service provided to LinkedIn members with a paid "Premium" subscription. Users do not purchase individual videos, but rather their premium membership gives them access to all the additional content contained in the LinkedIn Learning platform: videos; courses; and "learning paths." This is an important feature of LinkedIn Learning, in the context of the controversy prompted by Borysenko's tweets and YouTube videos about Coca-Cola. In a news release published on Feb. 20, Coca-Cola stated that "Confronting Racism" "was not part of the company's curriculum," meaning it was not something Coca-Cola obliged its employees to view. Rather, the company said, its training involved use of LinkedIn Learning, and the course was accessible there. news release So a company employee could log into a Coca-Cola LinkedIn account in order to watch videos that are part of their mandatory diversity training, but then navigate, within LinkedIn Learning, to "Confronting Racism," which need not be required viewing in order for them to access it. This would allow them to create screenshots that feature slides from the course, alongside a Coca-Cola logo in the top right-hand corner. So, contrary to Borysenko's claim, the presence of the logo was not proof that "Confronting Racism" was required viewing for company employees, merely that someone at Coca-Cola had viewed it. We asked Coca-Cola to provide details of the company's "diversity, equity and inclusion training." A company spokesperson did not provide a comprehensive curriculum, but did provide Snopes several examples of topics included as required viewing. Each of the following items appears to match individual videos available through the LinkedIn Learning platform:  Fundamentals Six steps unconscious bias impact brave allyship The spokesperson also provided further clarification about Coca-Cola's use of LinkedIn Learning in company trainings: "On learning channels not owned by The Coca-Cola Company, users had the ability to navigate outside of the intended curriculum which may have given the false impression that certain videos were part of the training." The controversy appears to have been caused by a fundamental misunderstanding, on the part of Borysenko and others, as to how LinkedIn Learning works, and the fact that Coca-Cola employees could, while taking part in their mandatory training, access hundreds of videos and courses that bore no relation to that training, and were not required. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that, despite Coca-Cola's clear denials, the existence of a coherent alternative explanation, and despite the complete absence of evidence so far, "Confronting Racism" was in fact listed on the curriculum.  [Correction]: Feb. 23, 2021. This fact check previously inaccurately described Robin DiAngelo as the producer of the video course "Confronting Racism." In fact, the course was produced by Big Think, using video footage taken from an earlier interview with DiAngelo. In late January 2016, Facebook users began sharing a post that promiseda $200 coupon for the Wegmanssupermarket chain to users who completed a short series of steps.  In July 2019, social media users began encountering a similar offer for an $80 coupon:  The embedded links in those posts pointed to a URL not associated with Wegmans.Userswho attempted to complete the steps andclaim thecoupon were directed toa page that resembledcontent hosted on Facebook,but its URL didn't matchthe social network's. The landing page was familiar to all who had encountered similar scams in the past:   Wegmans'official Facebook page warned customers about the coupon scam:  A Better Business Bureauarticle provided shoppers tips about avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice took to Facebook in October to tout gains in his states tourism industry. When I took office, I made tourism a top priority because I knew it had all the potential in the world, Justicewrote in his post. Today I am proud to announce that West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58%! Way to go West Virginia Tourism! The post linked to apress releasethat provided additional detail and cited astudyconducted by  Dean Runyan Associates, an economic consulting firm that has examined the states tourism industry annually since 2000. A year ago, we fact-checked how well Justice described the previous years statistics and rated itMostly True, because Justice glossed over some of the reports negative findings. How about this year? Lets take a look, point by point. (Justices office did not respond to inquiries for this article.) This is accurate. The report found that overall spending on tourism in West Virginia grew from $4.14 billion in 2016 to $4.28 billion in 2017 to $4.55 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 6.5%, easily exceeding the rate of inflation. Spending also grew for the second straight year if you set aside gambling revenue. It rose from $3.48 billion in 2016 to to $3.63 billion in 2017 to $3.91 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 7.5%. This also exceeded the rate of inflation. This is accurate, too. According to the data in the report, the rise over the past two years came after four consecutive annual declines, as this chart shows:  The report also provides data for the national tourism market thats comparable to the West Virginia numbers. According to the report, spending was $980 billion in 2018, a 4.1% increase over 2017. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but neither is the West Virginia figure, so the national and state figures can be compared equitably.) Justices 58% figure appears to come from comparing the most recent one-year increase in West Virginia (6.5%) with the most recent one-year increase nationally (4.1%). The West Virginia percentage increase is 58.5% bigger than the national increase. Justice said, West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58 percent. These numbers align with the findings of a longstanding annual study of the West Virginia and national tourism economies. We rate the statement True. In March 2024,Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was questioned about her support for fringe conspiracy theories by journalist Emily Maitlis, who asked her to talk about her supposed past comments on "Jewish space lasers." Their interaction went viral on social media as Greene used an expletive and walked away. Marjorie Taylor Greene questioned viral media used BREAKING: Marjorie Taylor Green said it was Jewish space lasers that caused the California wild fires. She loses it when asked about it by British Journalist: She responds "why don't you F**ck off"! The BBC is a discredited legacy media based on lies and deception. pic.twitter.com/vWgiW8b77c pic.twitter.com/vWgiW8b77c  Khalissee (@Kahlissee) March 6, 2024 March 6, 2024  Greene has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and antisemitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of antisemitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." While evangelical leader Franklin Graham has been a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, his father Rev. Billy Graham publicly warned against the prospect of religious figures becoming too attached to a political stance. Several readers contacted us in January 2018 seeking to confirm a statement attributed to the elder Graham: I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. The statement was also circulated online in meme form:   In this case, the quote is authentic, and taken from the 1 February 1981 cover story in Parade magazine; it was part of Billy Graham's account of conversations with fellow reverend Jerry Falwell, who helmed the conservative politcal group the Moral Majority. Graham said: I told him to preach the Gospel. That's our calling. I want to preserve the purity of the Gospel and the freedom of religion in America. I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. Liberals organized in the '60s, and conservatives certainly have a right to organize in the '80s, but it would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. The statement was featured early on in the story and was also highlighted below a picture of Falwell and then-President Ronald Reagan:     In the story, Graham admitted that he no longer thought of Communists as being "disciples of Lucifer," contrary to his own rhetoric from earlier in his career. He also cast himself as having no part of Falwell's organization, which became a key conservative constituency before dissolving in 1989. He said: It would be unfortunate if people got the impression all evangelists belong to that group. The majority do not. I don't wish to be identified with them. I'm for morality. But morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak out with such authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists can't be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future. While the elder Graham has had relationships with several U.S. presidents spanning decades, he told Christianity Today in 2011 that, given the chance to do anything differently in his life, "I also would have steered clear of politics." told His son, on the other hand, has positioned himself as a Trump supporter since 2011, when he contributed to the debunked "birther" conspiracy theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. In October 2016, the younger Graham published a social media post (misattributed to his father) urging evangelical voters to vote for Trump. contributed misattributed More recently, Franklin Graham has refused to criticize the president for reportedly calling African countries "shitholes" or for alleged extramarital affairs -- drawing criticism from Graham's own niece -- and claimed that the U.S. was "in a coup d'etat" perpetrated by political enemies of Trump who were using the media against him. refused criticism claimed Bailey, Sarah Pulliam.  "Q & A: Billy Graham on Aging, Regrets, and Evangelicals."
  Christianity Today.  21 January 2011. YouTube.  "Interview with the Rev. Franklin Graham," uploaded by ABC News.
  https://youtu.be/lx2E286GAcE  24 April 2011.  Vales, Leinz.  "Evangelical Leader Franklin Graham Says Trump is a 'Changed Person.'"
    CNN.   24 January 2018. Allen, Bob.   "Franklin Graham Asserts That Trump Could be Toppled in a Coup."
    Baptist News.   30 January 2018. Delk, Josh.   "Billy Graham's Granddaughter: Trump Needs to Ask for Forgiveness."
    The Hill.   27 January 2018. Claim:  "Poison pill" amendment inserted into Health Care Bill by Senator Reid makes proposed bill unamendable if passed. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  The gist of this piece, a reproduction of a Washington Examiner editorial, is that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada furtively slipped language into a health care reform bill which would absolutely prevent Congress from ever modifying or repealing the section of the bill to which it applied.  Although the language cited does appear in the bill, it has been quoted out of context and its applicability has been exaggerated. editorial It is true that beginning on page 1,001 of the referenced measure, Section 3403 reads in part:  '... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.'"  However, that sentence fragment is a misleading, selective excerpt which doesn't provide the full context.  The passage reads, in full: measure (A) IN GENERAL   It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).  (B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2). (C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. What that means, in effect, is that Congress may not make modifications to the referenced section if such modifications do not meet criteria specified elsewhere  ["subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)"] in the measure.  Those criteria are: (A) REQUIREMENTS.  Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.  Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. In other words,  these prolix passages do not absolutely bar any changes to the measure; they're simply protections that prohibit Congress from enacting modifications to the referenced section that would create an increase in net Medicare program spending or cause it to go over budget.  Moreover, page 1002 specifically states that such protections may be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate: (D) WAIVER.  This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (E) APPEALS.  An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph. Last updated:  22 March 2010 On 6 September 2016, the Thug Life Videos web site published an article reporting that an Arizona woman named Shania Jones was arrested for cutting off the tip of her partner's penis after he refused to look at her during sex:  A woman in Scottsdale, Arizona, has been arrested after she cut off her partners penis in a fit of fury. Shania Jones, 34, told detectives that she was sick of the man  who has been named locally as Bruce Fox  refusing to make eye contact with her during sex. Fox is currently in intensive care at Scottsdale Liberty Hospital, where he is expected to make a recovery. There was no truth to this report.  Thug Life Videos is an entertainment web site that frequently publishes "satire" (i.e., fake news) articles, as noted in their disclaimer: "As well as more serious content, we sometimes share the odd satire stories for your entertainment." In addition to this story's dubious source, the image accompanying the article was merely a doctored version of a mug shot taken in 2013 by the Ada County Sheriff's Department in Idaho of a woman who was arrested for shoplifting: mug shot