Michelle Obama at Soup Kitchen
Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009.
FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?  Claim: The mayor of Seattle has "launched" a new "rule" forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.   false WHAT'S   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.     WHAT'S   Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law. Examples: Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB  Warner Todd Huston (@warnerthuston) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r  EMERSON E.RODRIGUES (@EMERSON_NALITA) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx  Bunch (@bunch1243) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Origins:On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled "ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW" claiming that: article In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest. One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, theres something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and hes apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary. This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.  That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site's article "Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for Sharia-Compliant Housing Rules," which offered the following visual: article That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses.  Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles): article   For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it. Murray's housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you'd expect, including increasing the city's housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing. One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That's virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products. More and more lenders are offering Sharia-compliant financing. The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades, and analysts see potential for continued growth as the number of Muslims in the United States and Europe grows. Based on what he called "rough anecdotal evidence," Bukhari estimated a couple hundred people aren't borrowing money for houses due to their religion. He said this includes even high-wage earners, such as the more than 1,000 Muslims who work for Microsoft and more than 500 Amazon.com  employees. They could easily qualify for home loans but opt not to apply "simply because they don't want to pay interest," Bukhari said. "We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Murray said. The overall topic of Seattle-area Muslims and banking products was also addressed in another Puget Sound Business Journal article about retirement plans. According to that piece, CEO Thom Poulson of Falah Capital is working to facilitate opportunities for Muslim tech workers to access products such as 401(k)s and mortgages previously inaccessible to them due to religious barriers: article   It's estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft, and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company's retirement plan. That's because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It's almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too. "You have people who aren't getting the full benefits of their employer's offering," said Thom Polson, CEO of a new Seattle company, Falah Capital LLC, which works with Muslims to ensure they're investing while staying true to their beliefs. In partnership with Seattle-based Russell Investments and IdealRatings of San Francisco, Falah set up its first Islamic exchange traded fund (ETF) last fall. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "FIA," the Russell-IdealRatings Islamic US Large Cap Index, the ETF is the first of its kind on the exchange. Polson said a large percentage of the Muslims who work at tech firms are not using their 401(k) plans because they're not Sharia-compliant. "All of our advisory business is about addressing these needs," Polson said, adding his company is working with clients from the Muslim Association of the Puget Sound. The association has a large community center with a mosque in Redmond near Microsoft's headquarters. Next up for Fallah is a possible foray into home mortgages so clients can buy houses without taking out interest-bearing loans, which is against Sharia law. As part Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's landmark housing initiative, the city plans to work with lenders to help observant Muslims buy homes.   What these articles address are efforts to help businesses  service a significant portion of the local Seattle-area working population who are unable to utilize those business' current offerings  due to religious limitations, not to force businesses to comply with tenets of sharia law.  Mayor Murray's 13 July 2015 "Action Plan to Address Seattles Affordability Crisis" merely included a policy point of "explor[ing] the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products," not mandating that any local businesses offer such products: Action Plan  Support the Community in Finding Housing Tools for Sharia-Compliant Lending: For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law  which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money  there are limited options for financing a home. Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions. The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle.   Last updated: 17 July 2015 Originally published:  17 July 2015 Following the 14 February 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland Florida, people began posting information about planned school walkouts and protests, frequently with the hashtags #schoolwalkout or #nationalschoolwalkout. Readers wrote in confused about the various dates promoted by different groups. Below is a breakdown of planned events. On 20 and 21 February 2018, students from at least 50 high schools in South Florida participated in a walkout in one of at least two regional demonstrations staged by students in response to the shooting in Parkland. The Sun Sentinel reported: participated Perhaps the largest crowd came Wednesday [21 February 2018] afternoon when teens from various schools all converged on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, where authorities say Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 people. The demonstrators long lines snaked for several city blocks, visible through the aerial images captured by news helicopters. Drivers passing by honked their horns in support ... U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was outside Marjory Stoneman praising students. You all are so strong and you are so articulate, Nelson told the students as they nodded. Keep that message going on, because if you dont, itll get swallowed up into the same ol same ol, just like its been. 14 March 2018 Women's March Youth EMPOWER, an organization sponsored by the Women's March Network  which planned large-scale protests the day after Donald Trump's inauguration and a year afterwards  is planning a walkout for 14 March. It would be for 17 minutes, one minute for each of the people killed in the Parkland shooting:  sponsored     24 March 2018 Survivors of the 14 February shooting at Margery Stoneman Douglas High School and other students are planning a protest in Washington, D.C., called "March for Our Lives." The event has caught the interest of celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey and George and Amal Clooney, who have donated large amounts of money to the event. "Sister marches" will take place in cities around the world.  students event world 20 April 2018 The most highly publicized walkout appears to be planned for 20 April 2018, the 19th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. Details about the event vary across social media from a full-day absence to signing children out (or having students walk out) at the time the Columbine massacre occurred. At least one high school has threatened disciplinary action against any student participating in a school walkout. threatened On Facebook, a "No Kids Left" event was scheduled for 20 April 2018, which urged parents to keep their children out of school for the entire day: event Parents and Caregivers, please keep your children out of the classroom on Friday, April 20, 2018, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine HS massacre. This will be a simulation of the extreme outcome if we continue to only offer thoughts & prayers when our children are murdered at school. #nokidsleft Together lets send a message to our representatives & the current administration in Washington to take action. I'm a mom who doesn't know what else to do, but we must do something. Please share this event & RSVP to show your solidarity. Please help families who cannot afford to stay home from work by offering your service of child care. NOTE: We are working with www.noshootings.com to make the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting a day when no kids get shot because no kids will be at school. The Twitter account @schoolwalkoutUS, created in February 2018 provided a date of 20 April and clarified that the event was separate from the 24 March demonstrations: @schoolwalkoutUS On Friday, April 20th we want students to attend school and then promptly WALK-OUT at 10:00 am. Sit outside your schools and peacefully protest. Make some noise. Voice your thoughts. "We are students, we are victims, we are change."  National School Walkout (@schoolwalkoutUS) February 17, 2018 February 17, 2018  We contacted event organizers for clarification, and National School Walkout responded: Hello, The Walkout is real. It will take place at 10:00 a.m. on the anniversary of the Columbine killings, April 20th, and will be an opportunity for young people to send a clear message that we will not tolerate inaction on gun violence. Other organizations are planning similar events and protests. We fully endorse those events as well, and we hope that together we can end the violence that terrorizes our country. Chokey, Aric, Juan Ortega and Brett Clarkson.  "'Enough Is Enough,' Students Chant As Thousands Stage Walkouts Across South Florida."
  Sun Sentinel.  21 February 2018. Williams, David.  "Schools Threaten To Punish Students Who Join Walkouts Over Gun Control."
  CNN.  21 February 2018. Women's March.  "ENOUGH: National School Walkout."
  Accessed 22 February 2018. The Los Angeles restaurant scene offers tourists and locals the chance to eat in the dark, do a juice cleanse, and sneak your way into a secret courtyard by walking through a freezer. According to a 10 January 2018 fake news article, it also affords some elites -- namely Meryl Streep, Chelsea Clinton, and Katy Perry -- the opportunity to dine on human flesh: dark juice freezer article   What do Katy Perry, Meryl Streep, Anderson Cooper and Chelsea Clinton have in common? They have all eaten human flesh at LAs notorious cannibal restaurant, Cannibal Club. The private restaurant has long operated under the radar in Los Angeles, with rumors circulating about who has attended and what is really served behind closed doors. Now a leaked Cannibal Club document has exposed some of the notorious restaurants elite patrons. The Cannibal Club does not exist. Your News Wire based their article on two components: first, a fake "Cannibal Club" web site, which has been online since at least 2009; and second, a "leaked" document purportedly listing Streep, Clinton, and Perry as members.  web site The "staff" photographs on cannibalclub.org all come from stock photo web sites. Whoever designed the site used a photograph labeled "Beauty at her forties" for Elspeth Blake, the supposed proprietor; "Beatnik Nick" as the photograph for "Art Director" Hero Conners; and "Japanese woman in a tank top" for "Service Manager" Raven Chan. The photograph purportedly showing Chef de Cuisine Sophie Laffite is also an iStock photograph that was once used on an auto insurance web site: staff Beauty at her forties Beatnik Nick Japanese woman in a tank top auto insurance   The web site also promotes a regular Friday and Saturday night show (the same event has been listed on the web site since 2009), but does not provide any information about where the supposed restaurant is actually located. The FAQ section attempts to explain this by saying that "it is necessary for us to operate privately and to vette [sic] our members in order to avoid disruption from the less enlightened." Yet, we're doubtful that this club could have a permanent (or even roving) physical location where they host concerts while simultaneously avoiding detection from the authorities for nearly a decade.  FAQ authorities For the Your News Wire story cover image, the site used images of Katy Perry, Meryl Streep and Chelsea Clinton over a photograph purportedly showing The Cannibal Club. The image actually shows a restaurant in Spain called the "Cannibal Raw Bar." And no, they don't serve human meat there either.  Cannibal Raw Bar either  The only "evidence" Your News Wire provides of Streep, Perry, and Clinton's supposed membership at this nonexistent club is a single document uploaded to Scribd: Scribd:   There's no evidence that this "leaked" document actually came from a cannibal club in Los Angeles. Rather, it was likely created using digital editing software.  This is at least Your News Wire's second attempt to tarnish Katy Perry's reputation by connecting her to cannibalism. The web site, which has a long history of publishing false information, posted a fake news story in November 2017 claiming that the singer had revealed that she had an appetite for human flesh.  history fake news The wordconservativewas uttered 18 times during the Fox Business News Republican presidential debate on Nov. 10, 2015. The first 17 references made in the Milwaukee Theatre were done with particular emphasis by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. (Ohio Gov. John Kasich used the word once.) Paul called himself the only fiscal conservative among the eight candidates on stage -- and made a point to contrast himself with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in one of the more contentious exchanges of the night. Rubio had just defended his proposal to increase a child tax credit when Paul interjected. We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We're not talking about giving people back their tax money. He's talking about giving people money they didn't pay. It's a welfare transfer payment,Paul saidof Rubios tax credit plan. So, here's what we have. Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments -- a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative. Defending the tax credit and his defense spending proposals, Rubio said the family is the most important institution in society and the world is a stronger and a better place when the United States is the strongest military power in the world. But is Rubio proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending? And $1 trillion over what period of time? Tax credit Rubiostax planincludes creating a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child. It is meant to offset income and payroll taxes and is considerably larger than the $1,000 credit that is currently available. Refundabletax credits help people at the lower end of the income scale, in that people who are too poor to pay any income tax can get money back from the government. Pauls campaign referred us to a March 2015analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Foundation of a tax plan proposed in the Senate by Rubio and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. That analysis estimated the credit would result in a loss of tax revenue of about $170 billion per year. Thats the equivalent of $1.7 trillion over 10 years -- 10 years being a common time frame for federal budget planning. But its worth noting that Paul didnt say 10 years in making his claim. Well note that, unlike the original Rubio-Lee plan, Rubio as a candidate isproposingthat the credit would be phased out at higher income levels --  beginning at $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a family. That would mean the lost revenue would be something less than $1.7 trillion over 10 years, but still well above $1 trillion, saidKyle Pomerleau, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank. Thats because relatively few people at the higher incomes have children and would be eligible for the tax credits, he told us. In other words, the tax credit is expensive, Pomerlau said, because its large and nearly universal for families. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of theUrban InstituteandBrookings Institution, also did anestimateof the original tax credit proposal and came up with a figure similar to that of the Tax Foundation -- an estimated loss of nearly $1.58 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years. Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us the center hasn't analyzed Rubio's current proposal. But he said a loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years is a fair estimate. Pauls characterization of Rubios tax credit as welfare is a stretch, however. Eleanor May, Pauls campaign spokeswoman, said giving people a refundable credit -- meaning, giving them more than they paid is a welfare transfer payment from one group of people to another. But as our colleagues at PunditFactnoted, even the most expansive definition of welfare --  including the cash program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), traditional food stamps, Medicaid and the food program called Women, Infants and Children -- doesnt include tax credits. Rubio, whose campaign did not respond to our requests for this article, noted in the debate that everyone who works pays the payroll tax. Defense spending Rubio has backed more defense spending since at least March 2015, when he and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a budget amendment to increase the Pentagons budget. At the time, Rubio argued that adjusted for inflation, defense spending had declined by 21 percent since 2010 -- a claim PolitiFact National ratedMostly True. Rubios amendment proposed restoring defense spending levels to what had been proposed in the spring of 2011, for fiscal 2012 going forward, by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates proposal was prior to spending limits that were imposed by theBudget Control Actof 2011, which became law in the summer of 2011. Returning to the so-called 2012 proposed spending levels would add $1 trillion in defense spending over 10 years,Benjamin Friedman, a defense research fellow at the liberatrian Cato Institute, told us. That is also the estimate made in a July 2015reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The morning after the Milwaukee debate, Rubio was asked in a Fox News interview: So, where are you going to get the trillion dollars from that Rand Paul says we shouldnt be spending? Rubio didnt address the figure, saying: First of all, before we fund anything, the federal government should be fully funding national security. But he has made references to the $1 trillion cost in the past. In a September 2014speech, Rubio said he agreed with a recommendation by the bipartisan National Defense Panel to return to the 2012-level spending, which we are on track to be around $1 trillion short of through fiscal year 2022. And on his campaign website, Rubiosayshe would restore defense spending to the 2012 level, and begin to undo the damage caused by $1 trillion in indiscriminate defense cuts. Our rating Paul said Rubio is proposing a new $1 trillion welfare program and $1 trillion in new military spending. Its estimated that over 10 years, a common time frame for federal budget planning, Rubios child tax credit would result in the loss of $1 trillion in tax revenue; and his plan to reverse declines in Pentagon spending would cost $1 trillion. But its a stretch to call the tax credit welfare and in making his claim, Paul didnt state that the $1 trillion costs would be over 10 years. We rate Pauls statement Mostly True. More debate claims Go herefor PolitiFact National's fact checks on statements made during the Milwaukee debate. And herefor PolitiFact Wisconsin's night-of review of the debate. An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesnt mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofitCitizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens, following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing too much in Ukraine hasskyrocketedfrom 6% in March to 48% today. First, lets set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine,according to calculationsby Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some wont be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that havent been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Bidens administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statisticscollectedby the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on childrens behalf  a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing  amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Bidens administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found  far more than the $66 billion thats been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Bidens American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Bidens 2021 inauguration. One of the bills centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other childrens programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to theTreasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 Following the death of Carrie Fisher, the resurgent interest in her most famous role (that of Princess Leia in Star Wars) prompted renewed attention to the subject of the inspiration behind the most distinctive aspect of her character's appearance: Princess Leia's iconic look was inspired by real-life Mexican Revolutionaries pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K  NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 29, 2016 December 29, 2016 The debate regarding Princess (later General) Leia Organa's hair, and specifically her hair buns, began in 2002 when Star Wars creator George Lucas offered this explanation about it to Time magazine: offered In the 1977 film, I was working very hard to create something different that wasnt fashion, so I went with a kind of Southwestern Pancho Villa woman revolutionary look, which is what that is. The buns are basically from the turn-of-the-century Mexico. Then it took such hits and became such a thing. But as Remezcla reported, the claim came under question when the character's hair was compared to pictures of adelitas, as women who fought in the Mexican revolution were called, that exhibited no such hairstyle: reported, adelitas Lucas revelation of the hairstyles origins only seemed to cause confusion across the internet. Some found it difficult to find photographic evidence for Lucas claims. Perhaps, they only saw images of soldaderas wearing hats. (All Star Wars historian Michael Heilemann could find were these bun-less images of adelitas.) As a result, some began to look elsewhere to find other possible explanations. bun-less images In fact, some critics argued, Leia's hair more closely resembled a traditional hairstyle worn by women of the Hopi Native American tribe. But Eric Tang, an associate professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas-Austin, added to the discussion when he posted a picture (that post being no longer publicly available on Facebook) taken from a Star Wars exhibition currently on display at the Denver Art Museum that seemingly supported the "Mexican revolutionary" claim. worn exhibition The museum confirmed to Snopes on 30 December 2016 that the referenced photograph was part of their exhibition, and sent us full-length pictures of the display, as well as a transcription of the audio accompanying it:   Princess Leias side cinnamon-bun hairdo was one of the most iconic looks from the original "Star Wars" films. Some twenty years later, actress Natalie Portman wore these fake hair rolls to reprise the hairstyle as Padm Amidala in the film "Attack of the Clones." Clearly, George Lucas and his team had learned a thing or two in the intervening years. While it took actress Carrie Fisher two hours to have her hair done as Leia, Portman could just pop on her side buns in a matter of minutes. But where did this unusual hairstyle originate in the first place? Look for some of the reference photos nearby. For Princess Leia in the original "Star Wars," George Lucas was inspired by a traditional Hopi Native American hairstyle. For Leias mother, Padm, Lucas prequel team looked at Hopi and Mexican Revolution imagery for inspiration, and sketched even more dramatically shaped variations of the coiffure  as you can see in the drawing in this display. The response to Leias hair had been so overwhelming in the 1970s and beyond, that Lucas encouraged the prequel designers to be even more outlandish, drawing everything from space mohawks to snakelike coils, hair nautilus shells, and everything in between. A museum spokesperson could not directly confirm the origin of the picture other than to say it was "sourced from the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art archives at Skywalker Ranch." (We contacted Lucasfilm seeking additional information, but the film company did not respond.) However, we were able to track it down fairly easily, as it is a famous photograph of Mexican soldadera and guerrilla fighter Clara de la Rocha, as seen below (alongide her father, General Herculano de la Rocha): photograph General  Clara de la Rocha is described in the book Las Soldaderas: Women of the Mexican Revolution as a guerilla commander who played an important role in the seizing of the city of Culiacn, Sinaloa in 1911, alongside her father. She eventually earned the rank of coronela, or colonel, in the fight against Porfirio Diaz's regime. described regime One of her descendants, Alexandra de la Rocha, told Public Radio International that she saw Tang's post about the exhibit and recounted some of the soldadera's exploits: told She actually crossed a river on horseback ... and was able to take out a power station in order to allow the rebel forces to attack during night without being seen. he was a grizzled woman, as her father was. They were mountain people, and were actually miners and owned a lot of land. They were business people. Clara de la Rocha died in 1970 in Culiacn, the site of her most famous battle. While she was certainly not the only inspiration for the Leia Organa character's hairstyle, she was by all accounts a major one. Cagle, Jess.  "So, What's the Deal with Leia's Hair?" 
  Time.  21 April 2002. Simn, Yara.  "Princess Leias Iconic Buns Were Inspired by These Revolutionary-Era Mexican Women." 
  Remezcla.  28 December 2016.  El Informador.  "Las 'Adelitas', Las Otras Revolucionarias."     Informador.   19 November 2010. Denver Art Museum.   "Star Wars and the Power of Costume."  
   denverartmuseum.org The de la Rocha History Project.  "Herculan y Coronela Clara de la Rocha." 
  delarochahistory.com

 Public Radio International.  "The Little-Known Link Between Princess Leias Iconic Hairstyle and the Mexican Revolution." 
  30 December 2016. [01/23/2020]: Removed broken Facebook embed. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Sept. 13, 2021, rapper Nicki Minaj told her roughly 23 million Twitter followers that she knew of someone who supposedly got vaccinated against COVID-19 and then became impotent with swollen testicles. told her roughly COVID-19   The claim, which we address below, fueled news stories and social media chatter about a long-standing rumor: that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to infertility in both men and women. about a long-standing rumor That was not true, however. As of this writing, medical institutions  ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine  were aggressively attempting to combat false messages like Minaj's regarding infertility and vaccinations' alleged impact on reproductive systems, a process on which we elaborate below. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) American Society for Reproductive Medicine For people with female reproductive organs, the false theory stems from inoculations' real impact on recipients' immune systems. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, for examples, use mRNA technology to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the virus that causes COVID-19, technically called SARS-CoV-2. mRNA technology fight the virus "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein  or even just a piece of a protein  that triggers an immune response inside our bodies," the CDC states. That said, some people erroneously believe that those vaccine-producedantibodies could somehow mistake the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein withsyncytin-1  a different type of cellular formation that helps develop placentas and is vital for successful pregnancies. They operate under the false argument that the two proteins (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and placenta protein) appear similar and, therefore, the inoculation's technology could easily confuse the two. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein However, as biochemistEdward Nirenberg explained in a December 2020 blog post, the formulas of molecules (called amino acids) that make the two proteins have very few similarities. For one, the SARS-CoV-2 strand is shorter than the placenta protein: The former has 1,273 amino acids, while the latter has has 538, as reported by India's National Magazine Frontline. Edward Nirenberg December 2020 ndia's National Magazine Frontline "There is no plausible reason  no medical or scientific mechanism  for this vaccine to interact with a woman's reproductive organs or have any interaction with an egg that's been released or fertilized," family medicine doctor Laura Morris said in a news bulletin by University of Missouri Health Care (MU Health Care)."For your immune system to get mixed up and attack the placental protein would be like you mistaking an elephant for an alley cat because they're both gray. news bulletin "There is one small similarity, but the overall construction of the protein is so completely different, your immune system is way too smart to be confused by that." Considering those biological facts, no reputable research has found COVID-19 vaccines complicate pregnancies or make it harder for women to conceive when studying the inoculations' impact on recipients' bodies. The CDC stated on its website, as of this writing: women to conceive   In other words, during clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as Victoria Male, a researcher of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, summarized in the British Medical Journal.And, atassisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates were also similar between the two groups. Victoria Male the British Medical Journal. Meanwhile, it was true that tens of thousands of people reported changes to their period cycle or unexpected bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations as reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC. reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC However, there was no evidence to link those menstrual changes to the vaccine recipients' fertility. Rather, the possible side effect appeared to be physical proof of how people's immune systems were responding to the vaccines  much like how some people have experienced a fever, chills, or headache after the shots. appeared to be Additionally, as Male wrote in the British Medical Journal, most people who reported the possible side effect said it was temporary and their cycles returned to normal the following month: wrote in the British Medical Journal, Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA [Pfizer and Moderna] and adenovirus vectored covid-19 vaccines [Johnson & Johnson],1 suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.9 Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption. 1 9 Maleand the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) were calling for more research into the potential connection between menstrual changes and the vaccinations. Male National Institute of Child Health and Human Development While the possible side effect was largely "short-lived" and unrelated to fertility, Male wrote, understanding its full scope could help alleviate concerns among young women who falsely believe that the vaccinations could hurt their chances of future pregnancy. "Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears," Male stated. All of this said, experts in reproductive health recommend vaccinations for everyone who's thinking about becoming pregnant, already with child, or breastfeeding just like the rest of the population (over the age of 12). For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) said in a joint statement: statement As experts in reproductive health, we continue to recommend that the vaccine be available to pregnant individuals. We also assure patients that there is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility. While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely. Furthermore, medical experts saypeople who know they're pregnant should get the shots as soon as possible. That populationfaces a higher risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 compared to everyone else. (See the CDC's full list of underlying medical conditions that could exacerbate a COVID-19 viral infectionhere.) people who know they're pregnant faces a higher risk here "We have no logical reason to believe that the vaccine impacts fertility in any way, but we have plenty of evidence that pregnant individuals who become sick with COVID-19 get sicker, on average, than non-pregnant individuals," Cecilia Stuopis, the medical director of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical, said in an update. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical Also, asidefrom COVID-19's attack on pregnant people's respiratory system, evidence suggests the virusmay be linked to potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, according to theMIT Medicalupdate. AndMayo Clinic highlighted research that indicated pregnant women with COVID-19 were more likely to have premature births, cesarean deliveries, or babies that need neonatal care. preeclampsia MIT Medical Mayo Clinic "If you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant, contracting COVID-19 is almost certainly more dangerous than getting vaccinated," Stuopis said. Now, let's pivot to sperm. As of this writing, reputable medical institutions, including the CDC, were refuting rumors about male infertility by pointing to a study at the University of Miami in which researchers recruited 45 healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 with no underlying reproductive issues. The researchers examined the characteristics of their sperm, including the amount of them and how they moved, before and after the men got Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. study at the University of Miami In conclusion, the study stated: "No man became azoospermic after the vaccine," or unable to produce sperm. azoospermic Meanwhile, Ranjith Ramasamy, the director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the university, highlighted evidence that suggests the virus  not its vaccinations  can affect sperm counts and cause impotency. He worked on a study, for example, that examined penile tissue samples from two men who had COVID-19, and found blood vessel damage that would make it hard for blood to enter the penis for an erection. Ranjith Ramasamy highlighted study "Interestingly, the male reproductive organs have been found to be vulnerable in moderate to severe illness, leading to reports of erectile dysfunction and orchitis," a condition that can result in swollen testicles, according to a summary byRamasamy and other researchers. condition Additionally, "the risk of infertility and erectile dysfunction increases with the severity of an infection," Daniel Nassau, a urologist at the university, told Frontline. Frontline The impact of COVID-19 infections aside, there was no scientific support for Minaj's claim that the vaccines  the technology that aims to combat the virus  caused impotency or orchitis among people with male reproductive systems."We've never seen that," Ramasamy toldThe Associated Press. The Associated Press Ashley Winter, a urologist specializing in sexual dysfunction at Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, also emphasized in an interview with thatnews outletthat there was no evidence to substantiate any concerns over the vaccinations' potential threat to male fertility. thatnews outlet "On a population level, hundreds of millions of men have gotten this vaccine, and there's no study showing reduced erectile function in men who have been vaccinated," she said. "Fundamentally, we just have no study linking the vaccine to either swollen testicles or erectile dysfunction." CDC. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html. "CDC Newsroom." CDC, 1 Jan. 2016, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0811-vaccine-safe-pregnant.html. Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Affect Fertility? Here's What the Experts Say. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/does-covid-19-vaccine-affect-fertility-heres-what-experts-say. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Nirenberg, Edward. "Are COVID-19 Vaccines Going To Cause Infertility?" Medium, 16 Dec. 2020, https://edwardnirenberg.medium.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-going-to-cause-infertility-939bbdb62b64. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. I Want to Get Pregnant; Should I Avoid Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine? | MIT Medical. https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/02/want-to-get-pregnant-should-i-avoid-vaccine. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Medical Experts Continue to Assert That COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Fertility. https://www.acog.org/en/news/news-releases/2021/02/medical-experts-assert-covid-vaccines-do-not-impact-fertility. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Kresch, Eliyahu, et al. "COVID-19 Endothelial Dysfunction Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction: Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Study of the Human Penis." The World Journal of Men's Health, vol. 39, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 46669. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210055. Welle, Deutsche. "COVID-19 Vaccines & the Unfounded Tale of Infertility." Frontline, https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/covid-19-vaccines-and-the-unfounded-tale-of-infertility/article35739037.ece. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. Ramasamy, Ranjith. "COVID-19 Could Cause Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction  but Vaccines Do Not." The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-cause-male-infertility-and-sexual-dysfunction-but-vaccines-do-not-164139. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. 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 hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. A video posted to YouTube on 8 October 2014 offered the deathbed revelations of former Lockheed Martin engineer (aka "Area 51 scientist") Boyd Bushman, who spoke with aerospace engineer Mark Q. Patterson shortly before he passed away at age 78 in August 2014: https://youtu.be/bqQArKpA5ZQBushman went out with an extraterrestrial disclosure bang, making claims about having worked on projects involving antigravity, UFOs, aliens, "Area 51," and Roswell, New Mexico. According to his comments in the video, government officials had been in contact with aliens who strongly resemble humans, tend to be "approximately four and a half to five feet tall," "have three back bones" that are "actually cartilage," and are able to communicate telepathically: "They're able to use their own voice by telepathy to talk to you. You walk in the room with one of them, and all of a sudden you find yourself giving the answer to your question in your own voice," he said. In the video Bushman described two types of aliens, some of whom live for 200 (presumed Earth) years and hail from a planet called "Quintumnia" where, improbably, they continue to rustle cattle despite their vastly advanced technological state: "They divide them into two groups. One group are wranglers, and the others are rustlers  the ones who are stealers of cattle. The two groups act differently. The ones that are wranglers are much more friendly, and have a better relationship with us." The sole piece of evidence Bushman presented in support of his tale about alien visitations from Quintumnia were some purported photographs of these extraterrestrial beings:  However, when Bushman's claims began to gain traction on the Internet, a Reddit user located an existing plastic toy alien doll that very closely resembled the image of the "alien" Bushman had proffered in his video: Reddit https://youtu.be/2FPQL9qoZ9IA news outlet in Quebec also pointed out that the "alien" seen in the pictures held up by Bushman during the interview could be purchased at WalMart. WalMart Did Boyd Bushman prankishly decide to have one over on everyone as he departed his earthly life, was he a publicity-seeking charlatan, was he a true believer who actually thought he had experienced the things he described, or was he suffering the effects of senility? Regardless of his reasons for offering them, Bushman's extraordinary claims weren't the least bit convincing in an evidential sense, as Stuart J. Robbins noted for SWIFT: SWIFT A deathbed confession can be a way to solidify one's reputation. The thinking could easily be, "People really believe that people are 100% honest on their deathbed, so I'm going to make sure I go out with a 'bang' and make my claims yet again. People who didn't believe me before might this time because they'll think I'm telling the truth 'cause I'm about to die." However, in addition to explaining why the common reasons to believe deathbed confession testimony are unconvincing, there's a better reason why the testimony is not useful: They're doing it wrong. Let's say I had a bunch of secrets of exotic physics and decided to do a deathbed confession. Here's what I would say: "I've been working on antigravity and warp field physics for the last 50 years, in secret, with the US government." Then, instead of showing photos of a spaceship or a blurry alien, I would add: "And, here are the equations. Here is a diagram for how you build a device. Here is a working model. Here is exactly how you put everything together." In other words, it shouldn't matter who I am, what my experience is, or what pretty (or ugly) picture I show. What I need to show is HOW to do it. Just saying something doesn't make it so. I need to give enough information for someone else to verify it and duplicate it. Otherwise, what's the point? To make a spectacle before I die? That's why I find this whole deathbed confession thing unconvincing and, perhaps more importantly, not useful: We have no more information than we had before. We have no way to verify any of the information claimed. No way to test or duplicate it. At best, we have another person claiming this stuff is real, and while he or she may be proven out with the passage of time, their "confession" contributed absolutely nothing to that advancement. Until then, it's no better than any other pseudoscientific claim. Cloutier, Jean-Francois.  "An Engineer from Lockheed Martin Talks About UFOs Before His Death."
  TVQC.  26 October 2014. Fetcher, Joshua.  "Former Lockheed Martin Engineer from Texas: I Met Aliens at Area 51."
  San Antonio Express-News.  30 October 2014. van Velzer, Ryan.  "UFOs Over Tucson Video Part of Viral Debate."
  The Arizona Republic.  14 December 2007.