Did Obama Give Syria $195 Million to Celebrate a Muslim Holiday?
On 15 December 2015, the disreuptableAmerican News web site recycledan old article claiming that President Obama had given $195 million to Syria in honor of a Muslim Holiday:  The Facebook post shown above redirected users to an article originally published byAmerican News a year and half earlier, on 6 July 2014: According to recent reports, President Obama has decided to give 195 million taxpayer dollars to Syria to celebrate the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr. Once again it appears Obama is unilaterally deciding what is best for the United States. What do you think? Are there better ways to spend American tax dollars? Although the American News article accurately quoted an official White House press release, its reposting in December 2015 deliberately misled readers into believing the release's contents were current news. In fact President Obama's announcement that the United States would be providing additional humanitarian aid to Syria has been issued over two years earlier, on 7 August 2013: announcement Michelle and I send our warmest greetings to Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr here in the United States and around the world. During the past month, Muslims have honored their faith through prayer and service, fasting and time spent with loved ones. At this years White House Iftar, I was proud to spend time with some of the many American Muslims whose contributions enrich our democracy and strengthen our economy. Many of us have had the opportunity to break fast with our Muslim friends and colleagues  a tradition that reminds us to be grateful for our blessings and to show compassion to the less fortunate among us, including millions of Syrians who spent Ramadan displaced from their homes, their families, and their loved ones. To help the many Syrians in need this Eid al-Fitr, the United States is providing an additional $195 million in food aid and other humanitarian aid, bringing our humanitarian contribution to the Syrian people to over $1 billion since the crisis began. For millions of Americans, Eid is part of a great tapestry of Americas many traditions, and I wish all Muslims a blessed and joyful celebration. It should also be noted that the United States did not give $195 million in cash to Syria simply to allow them to celebrate a Muslim holiday.The $195 million came in the form offood and other humanitarian aid and was intended to provide needed relief to citizens experiencing hardship and suffering in that war-torn country; the announcement was merely timely in that it coincided with the beginning of the important Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that year.  [article-meta]
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 As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020. 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. On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 2017. On Dec. 15, 2023, we received reader mail that asked about a purported giveaway on Facebook that promised one winner a 2023 Toyota Tundra pickup truck. The many Facebook pages that promoted the supposed giveaway were named 2023 Tundra, TRD. One of the posts read as follows and directed users to a sites.google.com website: Christmas surprise! This Toyota Tundra wasn't sold so we're giving it to someone by December 19th who $hared and Register here. Another post asked users to enter the giveaway in the comments by typing "@" and then clicking on "highlight." In the pinned comment under the post, users were directed to visit a website to "validate" their entry. post  However, none of these posts hosted a genuine giveaway for a 2023 Toyota Tundra. All of this was a scam apparently designed to entice users to fill out surveys, sign up for "free trials" on websites and perform other tasks, at least partially in order for the scammers to obtain an affiliate-marketing commission. In other words, it was a waste of time  and a potentially dangerous one at that  for users who hoped to win a free pickup truck. Unfortunately, as of Dec. 15, over 450,000 users had commented on just one of the posts. It's unclear how many of these users continued with the scam by clicking on one of the links. The reason why the scammers asked users to type "@" in the comments and then click "highlight" was to boost the page's following. This would potentially help the scammer to sell the follower-filled page in the future, if that was the goal. (We previously reported about the "highlight" feature on Facebook.) reported about Based upon the actions of scammers over the last several years, it's likely that they will attempt the same fake giveaway strategy in the future using the makes and models of other cars. For any users who fell for these scams and gave away their financial information (e.g. a credit card number), we recommend retracing your steps and ensuring that any "free trials" that were signed up for are canceled, so that no future charges appear on your statement. Call your credit card company for further advice. For further reading, the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) published an article about how to spot fake giveaways on social media. One of those tips mentioned to find out if the Facebook page that's offering the giveaway has a verified badge or not. If it has a verified badge, it's likely a legitimate giveaway. However, scammers have been known to seize on accounts with verified badges in order to advertise their scams, so bear in mind that this is not a foolproof tip. article verified badge BBB Scam Alert: How to Spot a Fake Social Media Giveaway. U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB), 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/23522-scam-alert-how-to-spot-a-fake-social-media-giveaway. Liles, Jordan. Does Typing @ in a Facebook Comment and Clicking Highlight Reveal Page Watchers? Snopes, 27 Nov. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-highlight-page-watchers/. On 28 March 2016,Stephanie Cegielski, aone-time strategist for the "Make America Great Again" super PAC,published an open letter to Trump supporters on the web site xoJane: published Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%.His candidacy was a protest candidacy. The letter immediately wentviral, and while some ponderedCegielski's main talking point (that Donald Trump doesn't want to be president and didn't expect to be the GOP frontrunner) others questioned whether or not Cegielski was really Trump's top campaign strategist. Complicating things, the headline appeared to contradict the body of the article. xoJaneidentified Cegielski as Trump's "top strategist" in their title, but Cegielski identified herself as the "Communications Director of the 'Make America Great Again' Super PAC" in her open letter to Trump supporters: In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness. I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money. Cegielski was identified as a "spokeswoman" for the super PAC in an August 2015 article published inPolitico,and Cegielski called herself a "consultant" on her LinkedIn profile: published LinkedIn  While Cegielski's official title may be unclear, it's certain that labeling Cegielski "Trump's top campaign strategist" isincorrect. Cegielski worked for a super PAC(which, despite the name, is not legally recognized as apolitical action committeeand by law cannot contribute directly to or coordinate with a political campaign, although they can use raised funds to campaign independently)and notfor Donald Trump'spresidentialcampaign: recognized political action committee Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Hope Hicks, a spokesperson for theTrump campaign, told Yahoo NewsthatCegielski was never employed byDonald Trump's presidential campaign: Yahoo News Evidently she worked for a Super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. The "Make America Great Again" super PAC went dark as of October 2015 amid ongoing scrutiny of where the money was coming from and going to, and whether the committee had direct ties to the Trump campaign.  Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." During Donald Trumps recent fundraising trip to San Diego, Democratic Congressman Scott Peters had some harsh words for the GOP nominee. His economic policies are dangerous, Peters, who represents much of 'America's Finest City,' told reporters on a conference call. He will say or do anything that benefits him. We cant fact check that statement because its the congressmans opinion. But Peters repeated one critique thats open to examination: This is a guy, he said of Trump, who rooted for the housing crisis, because he knew he could make money off of it. Congressman Scott Peters, D-San Diego, campaigns at a town hall in October 2014. AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi Hillary Clinton lodged the same attack in a Maycampaign video. In 2006, Donald Trump was hoping for a real estate crash, the ad says, showing a picture of Trump giving two thumbs up. The ad goes on to list consequences from the Great Recession, which peaked in 2008. It lists 9 million jobs lost and 5 million families who lost their homes. This campaign ad from Hillary For America includes 2006 audio from Donald Trump about the housing market. That's followed by audio, identified as being from 2006, of Trump saying, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy ... If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you could make a lot of money. And the man who could be our next president was rooting for it to happen, the ad contends. Peters statement that Trump rooted for the housing crisis, clearly draws on the Clinton ad. His office referred us to the Democratic National Committee, which supplied the Clinton ad with Trumps I sort of hope that happens audio. Our national PolitiFact team checked the original claim made in May by the Clinton ad andrated it Mostly True. Heres why: I sort of hope that happens Trumps statement comes from the audiobook How to Build a Fortune, created as part ofTrump University, which has been the subject of three lawsuits from former students who allege they were ripped off by the billionaire. In 2006, real estate values had peaked and there was concern that they were overpriced, creating a bubble that could burst, producing a rapid fall in values. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position  which I'm in a good cash position today  then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Whether the bubble burst that Trump was hoping for deserves to be called a crash, especially a crash on the scale of what occurred during the Great Recession, is open to debate. Trump, in the audiobook, adds: At the same time, I don't think that (real estate bubble burst) will happen because if interest rates stay fairly low, if the dollar stays pretty much where it is or even goes a little bit higher, but basically if you have a weak dollar, this is tremendous amounts of money pouring in, so I don't think that's going to happen. I'm not a believer that the interest market, that the real estate market, is going to take a big hit. Obviously, he would turn out to be wrong. A year later, in 2007, Trump wastelling the Toronto Globe and Mailthat he was ready to invest in real estate because the market was starting to head down. People have been talking about the end of the cycle for 12 years, and I'm excited if it is, he told the paper. I've always made more money in bad markets than in good markets. The Trump campaign didn't respond to PolitiFact's emails. Our ruling Rep. Scott Peters, D-CA, said Donald Trump rooted for the housing crisis, because he knew he could make money off of it. His statement parallels a claim in Hillary Clintons May campaign ad: In 2006, Donald Trump was hoping for a real estate crash. Trump said on more than one occasion that he welcomed a downturn in the real estate market because it would give him a chance to buy properties at a bargain and sell them at a higher price later. What's far less clear is whether Trump was rooting for something on the scale of the Great Recession, a suggestion made in the Clinton ad, or a housing crisis, as suggested by Peters. In fact, Trumps comments in his audiobook and to the Globe and Mail show he didn't envision the financial meltdown that followed. PolitiFact rated Clintons statementMostly True, saying it was accurate but needs clarification or additional information. For the same reason, we rate Peters statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/20b849c5-4175-4117-a150-6010ffdaec89 Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. Claim:  Bovine Unite is a viral marketing campaign for a chain of chicken restaurants.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] I had just left my friends downtown when apparently a van pulled up and cows jumped out and started handing out bells with BovineUnite.com printed on them. I'm not sure what to make of the website.  Apparently C-Day is on May 5th. I'm not sure if it's a clever campagin from Chick-Fil-A or what. But the whole thing is kinda funny. Origins:   In April 2005, reports began flowing out of Maryland regarding innocent bystanders being cowed by groups of roaming bovines.  These bovines were not rampaging bulls let loose on city streets ( la  Pamplona), however, but humans in cow suits who traveled in vans and trucks and handed out free goodies such as bells, all emblazoned with the words "Bovine Unite" and/or the domain name BovineUnite.com. Pamplona Intrigued visitors who surf the BovineUnite.com web site (Cows only!  Humans get kicked out.) are greeted with a manifesto of bovine revolt, presented to the strains of martial music layered with moos: manifesto My fellow bovines.  Every day the humans chase us with horses, rope us, and milk us for all they're worth.  Quite frankly, I've had it up to my udders. All work and no play makes Buttercup a mad cow. So, we must take action.  And we must take action now.  The time has come to rise up and take destiny into our own hooves.  The time has come to claim our right to play in greener pastures.   It's time to live, cows.  Oh yes.  It's time to live. The interior of the site includes links for "Propaganda" (downloads), a hangman game, a Bovine Blog, and a "Talk to the Herd" message board. Bovine Blog Talk to the Herd What's it all about?  The only hint is a notice informing fellow bovines: "The plan goes into effect on C-Day 05.05.05 Tune into the networks between 8:45 and 9:00 PM for further instructions." There seems little doubt that BovineUnite.com is a viral marketing campaign being conducted on behalf of some corporate client, but who that client might be remains a mystery.  A couple of creative agencies have been fingered for possible involvement:  A poster at Ask Metafilter reported that a classified ad run in the Baltimore section of Craigslist seeking to employ cow-suit wearers in Baltimore included a  Ask Metafilter  contact e-mail address at RedPeg Marketing, so one presumption is that RedPeg is handling the campaign (especially since they've created viral efforts for other major corporate clients).   RedPeg Marketing  The registrant of the BovineUnite.com domain name (Will Davis) is Vice President, Director of Operations of Eisner Interactive, so that firm might also be involved. Eisner Interactive, Guesses about the type of business engaged in by the mystery client include chicken restaurants (such as KFC or Chick-fil-A), cow-derived food products (e.g., milk), or animal rights campaigns.   (We'd venture that the campaign seems a little too obvious to be connected with the food or restaurant industry, and too whimsical to be the effort of an animal rights group.) The restriction (so far) of the BovineUnite campaign to Maryland indicates it may be advertising something of regional rather than national interest, such as the Maryland state lottery  an outfit which appears in Eisner Interactive's list of clients.  (Cash cows, anyone?) clients We'll just have to wait and watch to see if any more clues slip out before C-Day. Update:  Looks like we guessed right: Bovine Unite was an ad campaign for the Maryland Lottery. Maryland Lottery Last updated:  5 May 2005 Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 On 21 August 2017, the conservative non-profit organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) posted a meme juxtaposing a 42-year-old quote by then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan with a 2016 photograph of anti-fascist protesters in Dover, England, intended to create the impression that "antifa" demonstrators represented fascism coming to the the United States in just the way that Reagan had predicted decades earlier:   That quote was taken from a December 1975 interview of Reagan conducted by Mike Wallace for the 60 Minutes news magazine television program:  We've found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) holding that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesvile, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation. antifa The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016 by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town. rally The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology. anarchists extreme !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/ucxbq"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video": "v3t27p","div": "rumble_v3t27p","autoplay":2}); ITV.  "Far-Right and Anti-Fascist Groups Clash at Protests in Dover."
  30 January 2016. Penny, Daniel.  "An Intimate History of Antifa."
  The New Yorker.  22 August 2017. Beinart, Peter.  "The Rise of the Violent Left."
  The Atlantic.  September 2017 issue. KentOnline.com.  "Dover Riots of January 30, 2016  Police Hunt for Far Right and Anti-Fascist Thugs Goes On."
  30 January 2017. Sepulvado, John, and Bert Johnson.  "Californian Who Helped Lead Charlottesville Protests Used Berkeley as a Test Run."
  KQED-TV.  14 August 2017. McCreesh, Shawn.  "Antifa and the 'Alt-Left': Everything You Need to Know."
  Rolling Stone.  18 August 2017.