Did Ex-Judge Roy Moore Write Anti-Abortion Poem 'America the Beautiful'?
In the summer of 2021, an old poem, touching on several conservative talking points including abortion, re-emerged on social media. The poem, entitled "America the Beautiful," was widely attributed to controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. He lost a U.S. Senate election to Democrat Doug Jones in 2017, after several women accused him of sexual impropriety decades ago, when they were in their teens and Moore was in his 30s. The former judge has denied the allegations.  controversial Roy Moore denied Many Facebook posts in July and August 2021 began with the following introduction:  Some of you may be wondering what Alabama Judge Roy Moore has been doing since he was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. The following is a poem written by Judge Moore...   The poem was also widely shared in 2020, especially after it was posted to Facebook by Sharon Baptist Church in Iron Station, North Carolina. Most of the Facebook posts in 2020 and 2021 included a photograph of a bearded and bespectacled man (shown above) who is, definitively, not Moore. It's not clear who the man is, or why his picture was almost universally associated with the poem in Facebook posts.  posted to Facebook Snopes readers have inquired about "America the Beautiful" for at least a decade, and the poem has been attributed to Moore as far back as 1999. On the website of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit organization started by Moore but now headed by his wife, Kayla, the poem is published along with following assertion: " Copyright 2007 Roy S. Moore": 1999 published America the Beautiful, or so you used to be,Land of the Pilgrims pride, Im glad theyre not here to see,Babies piled in dumpsters, abortion on demand,Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand. Your children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.From sea to shining sea this Nation has turned away,From the teaching of Gods Law, and a need to always pray. So many worldly pastors telling lies about our Rock,Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.Weve kept God in our temples, how foolish we have grown,When all the earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne. Weve voted in governments that are rotting to the core,Appointing Godless judges who throw reason out the door.Too soft to put a killer in a well deserved tomb,But brave enough to kill that child before he leaves the womb. You think that Gods not angry, that our lands a moral slum?How much longer will it be before His judgment comes?And how can we face our God, from Whom we cannot hide?What is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide! For if we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray,If we seek His holy face, and mend our evil way,Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins.Hell heal our sickly land and those who live within. But, America the beautiful, if you dont then you will see,A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.   Moore also recited "America the Beautiful" during his speech at the October 2017 Values Voter Summit, which can be watched here (beginning around 3:00:00).  3:00:00 The assertion of Moore's copyright, and the consistent attribution of the poem to him in various forums over the past two decades, all point towards his authorship. However, the earliest publication of the poem that we could find was dated 1992 and attributed to someone else entirely.  On Oct. 28, 1992, the Victoria Advocate newspaper in Victoria, Texas, published a letter to the editor written by a Richard A. Barsness, in support of anti-abortion politicians. The letter incorporated a nearly identical poem to the one later claimed by Moore, but attributed it to a David Hungerford, as shown below: published   Snopes contacted individuals who might be able to shed further light on Barsness' letter, and the possible involvement of a David Hungerford in the writing of the poem, but we did not receive responses in time for publication. Speaking on behalf of Moore, a staff member at the Foundation for Moral Law told Snopes, "Judge Moore has been writing poetry since the early 1980s and cannot say when this was written." When we pressed the spokesperson on whether that statement meant Moore was continuing to assert that he wrote "America the Beautiful," the spokesperson did not elaborate.  We found only one other attribution of the poem to a David Hungerford, in an undated document hosted on the website of the Calvary Chapel in Eagle, Idaho. By contrast, Moore has been cited as its author on dozens of occasions over the past two decades. undated document However, because the earliest publication of the poem that we could find so far (in 1992) was attributed to David Hungerford, and Moore did not provide evidence that he wrote the poem before then, we cannot rule out the possibility that someone by the name of Hungerford, or even someone else entirely, was the original writer of the poem later claimed by Moore. As such, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. If definitive evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.
Republicans who control the state Legislature are touting their just-completed work on the 2011-2013 state budget.State Sen. Alberta Darling, a co-chairwoman of the legislatures Joint Finance Committee, has been especially vocal about the virtues of the $66 billion spending plan. As one of nine senators facing recall elections over their actions on the separate collective bargaining bill, shes also been the target of criticism for her votes.I think this budget really does put us in the right direction -- phenomenally, Darling said in a June 20, 2011, meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and reporters. Its phenomenal whats been accomplished in terms of debt and deficit reform and restructuring.Darling added: Were in the black for the first time in decades.To be clear, the budget has to be in the black every year when it is passed. The state constitution says it must be balanced. Darling was talking about the structural deficit, which is a relatively new way of measuring the states future fiscal health.The structural deficit measures the future imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law. So you can have a balanced budget, but one built upon assumptions that are projected to result in a deficit later on.Weve been hearing about that problem for years.Darling, Walker and others argue their predecessors made the state budgets balance by using one-time maneuvers -- such including the states share of federal tobacco settlement money, and diversions of funds for transportation and medical malpractice insurance.All these approaches only delayed the day of fiscal reckoning to make the budget balance, leading to the structural deficit, said Walker, in themessageaccompanying his budget introduction.So, is Darling right?Did Walker and the Legislature resolve -- for the first time in decades -- the underlying problems, as well as balance spending for the two-year period that begins July 1?The size of the structural deficit is determined by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, considered by both parties to be a neutral scorekeeper on budget matters. The agency started doing the projections with the 1997-99 budget.The agency takes a look at the budget as proposed, amended and passed, said agency director Robert Lang. He begins his estimates with a baseline -- the second year of the current budget, which is adjusted based on previously approved law changes or legal commitments. The new budget is then factored in.It takes out speculation, Lang said of the structural deficit estimates. It puts out a marker based on current revenues and projections.Agency reports show for the past 14 years show the highest structural deficit was $2.8 billion for the 2003-05 budget, and the lowest was $1.49 billion for the 2007-09 budget.Areportissued June 13, 2011, said the 2011-13 budget as approved by the Joint Finance Committee would result in a $306 million surplus. The Legislature changed very little of the committees work. Langs office will evaluate the budget again now that Walkers vetoes are completed and the budget signed.Here was Langs assessment based on the earlier action: Weve had structural deficits since I started doing this, and now theres a structural surplus.So Darlings right on that account: the budget has a structural surplus and not a deficit.The budget does include the changes in pension and insurance payments state workers -- a law enacted before the budget was considered that did not take effect until after it passed -- that helped reduce the budget gap. Those changes are viewed as permanent, not one-time fixes, Lang said.Langs office has only 14 years of records covering a total of nine budgets, including the most recent one. No budget in this time frame showed a surplus, until the current one.In making her statement, Darling said the structural deficit was fixed for the first time in decades. When we talked to her, she said she misspoke when she said decades.As aide Bob Delaporte said: The point was that its in the black for the first time in a long time.Fair enough.Since the structural deficit was not measured before 1997-99, we cant say just when the structural deficits began.Whats the bottom line?In talking about the structural deficit, Darling claimed lawmakers delivered a budget in the black for the first time in decades. The budget lawmakers sent to Walker is projected to have a $306 million surplus. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau report on structural deficits says theres not been a budget with a structural surplus dating back to when it started recording such things 14 years ago. Darling may have overstated how far back the problem goes, but no one knows for certain and that does not change the underlying point of her statement.We rate her statement Mostly True. During a campaignspeechin Milwaukee, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold called for gradually raising the federal minimum wage to $15. It is now set at $7.25 an hour. And without mentioning Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson by name, the Democrat attacked Johnson. The two are poised for a rematch in 2016. Now, my likely opponent, the incumbent senator, opposes entirely -- get this, opposes entirely -- a federal minimum wage, Feingold said Aug. 18, 2015. At least for Americans -- apparently he has some openness about guest workers -- disrespecting the hard work and dignity of too many working Wisconsinites. Johnson has oftenspoken againstraising the minimum wage. But does he oppose there being any general federal minimum wage law? Hot topic -- $10, $12 or $15 Raising the federal minimum wage is a common campaign plank among Democrats. A month before Feingolds speech, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president,introducedlegislation for an increase to $15 an hour.Meanwhile, Democratic presidential contender Martin OMalley also backs $15, while front runner Hillary Clinton, like President Barack Obama, has expressed support for $12. Many Republicans -- including Johnson and one of the leading GOP candidates for president, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker -- oppose a raise. Walker argued in 2014 that minimum-wage jobs are overwhelmingly for young people starting out in the work force, a statementwe rated False.We found the best estimates were that 24 percent to 55 percent of such jobs are held by teenagers and young adults. But later in the year, PolitiFact National ratedMostly Truea claim by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would destroy between 500,000 and 1 million jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had said that roughly 500,000 workers could lose their jobs, but that most likely the range was between very few to 1 million. What Johnson said To back Feingolds claim, his campaign citedcommentsJohnson made more than a year earlier, at a July 2, 2014 WisPolitics luncheon in Milwaukee. A member of the audience asked Johnson: What should the federal minimum wage be? Or should there not be a minimum wage? Johnson replied: Shouldnt be one. The only area that I would agree with minimum wage is in immigration reform, the guest worker program. I'd be 100 percent supportive of a minimum wage -- kind of industry specific, maybe regionally specific -- for guest workers, so that we're not creating incentives for employers to bring in immigrants to lower the price of labor. He added: In the general economy, you get government involved in making market decisions -- first of all, they're going to get it wrong. For a minimum wage, you will actually reduce the number of jobs available. What you don't want to do -- if you're concerned about poverty, if you're concerned about providing opportunity -- you don't want to rip the bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity away from people. And thats what you do. (The federal government has so-called guest workerprogramsthat allow foreign nationals to fill temporary jobs, both agricultural and non-agricultural.) Johnson did not dispute Feingolds claim. His campaign emailed us a statement that said in part that Johnson worked for minimum wage on his first job and knows minimum wage laws are here to stay and we should design them to make sure they dont hurt the very people they are designed to help. Johnson opposes a raise to $15, the statement added, but does not seek to get rid of the federal minimum wage -- it's here to stay. Our rating Feingold says Johnson opposes entirely a federal minimum wage, except perhaps for guest workers. It may not be a position Johnson has stated often, but when asked in July 2014 whether there should be a federal minimum wage, Johnson said there should not be one, other than perhaps one for guest workers. And while he may not be trying to repeal the wage, Johnson didnt dispute the accuracy of Feingolds claim -- that he is against having a federal minimum, except perhaps for guest workers coming in from outside the United States. We rate Feingolds statement True. Texas Lt. Gov . Dan Patrick made such a dramatic claim about must-pass tax-rate legislation--$20,000 in savings for the average homeowner every year!--we launched a fact check. Patrick, during17 minutes of remarks to Capitol reporters May 17, 2017, namedSenate Bill 2, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, as one of two measures--along with the Senate-backed proposal barring local governments and school districts from letting transgender residents use bathrooms of choice--that must pass, in Patricks view, for lawmakers to avoid one or more special sessions possibly called by Gov. Greg Abbott after the regular session that must end by midnight Memorial Day. Patrick, mindful the House then had yet to vote on SB 2, said the Senate-approved version of the measure would bring about the largest property tax reform in Texas history. It would bring local government spending under control, give the voters an automatic election on government spending, of anything over 5 percent, and, Patrick said, save the average homeowner in Texas $20,000 a year over the next 20 years or so. Patrick aide: He meant $20,000 cumulatively Is that correct? To our inquiry, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said by email that Patrick had intended to tout savings adding up to $20,000 over 20 years. He pointed out a Texas Tribunenews storyposted two days after Patrick spoke quoting an unnamed Patrick staffer saying the same. The Tribune story said Patrick provided its reporter with asheet of figuressuggesting $20,856 in cumulative savings to the average homeowner, a conclusionpredicatedon local tax-rate hikes running higher than usual. The story quoted Dick Lavine, a tax analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities,which opposes SB 2, saying: This calculation certainly does not portray what an average homeowner could expect in any given year, to say nothing of experiencing these savings every year for the next 20 years. Bettencourt offers backup We didnt draw any backup from Patrick. But Bettencourt replied to our inquiry by offeringa chartsuggesting escalating savings for what he described as the owner of the median-valued Texas home based, he said, onresearch by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which drew on data on home sales culled monthly by the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University:           SOURCE:Chartprojecting homeowner savings from Senate-approved version of Senate Bill 2 (received by email from Lauri Saathoff, director of communications, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, May 17, 2017) In phone messages, Bettencourt noted that the associations analysis suggests that over five recent years, through 2015, the owner of a median-valued home saw a nearly 34 percent escalation in property taxes paid to the local government entities targeted by SB 2, which averages out to increases of more than 6 percent a year. Those entities are cities, counties and special districts though not school districts. How the chart gets to a $22,761 cumulative savings in year 20 figure: It shows first-year savings under SB 2 for the median-value homeowner of $46, second-year property tax savings of $99 with annual savings exceeding $1,100 starting in year 12--and topping $2,100 a year starting in year 17. Each years savings, the chart shows, reflects the difference between what the homeowner would face in local property taxes if all government units raised taxes 8 percent minus what the homeowner would face if the local government entities all raised taxes 5 percent. Under existing law, local governments may raise effective tax rates up to 8 percent without residents being able to petition for a rollback election.The effective raterefers to the rate needed for the governing unit to raise the same total amount of taxes from the same local properties as the unit garnered the year before. Under the Senates version of SB 2, any of the affected entities could raise such taxes up to 5 percent with any additional bump automatically touching off a rollback election. Realistic tax-rate assumptions? We asked Bettencourt about the basis of the charts assumption that local governments will every year across-the-board raise effective tax rates 5 percent and if its realistic to compare that to an assumption that such governments would otherwise uniformly be driving up rates 8 percent every year. In phone messages, Bettencourt stressed the TTARA chart showing the recent average 6-percent-plus increases in property taxes charged the owner of a median-valued home. Separately, Dale Craymer of TTARA declined to comment. Bettencourt also gave  us analternate savings projectionpremised on all government entities affected by SB 2 annually raising effective rates 6 percent (rather than 3 percent) without a change in law. Upshot: Cumulative savings to the median-value homeowner would exceed $17,000 in year 20, the second chart suggests. We asked Bettencourt about available data showing local governments had widely maximized tax rates every year of late.In writing, he replied that hed heard testimony along those lines from an Arlington and a Dallas official during pre-session hearings of the Bettencourt-chairedTexas Senate Select Committee on Property Tax Reform and Relief. Actual county, city tax rate changes Advocates for cities and counties say the senators assumption--that local governments will always uniformly raise effective tax rates to the maximum level allowable without risking a rollback vote at the polls--doesnt reflect what Texas governments have been doing. By phone, Don Lee of the Texas Conference of Urban Counties,representing38 member-counties home to most of the states residents, said that from 2014 through 2016, the counties averaged 2.2 percent effective tax rate increases, falling far short of the 8 percent rate that would open the way to a rollback vote. Lee emailed us aspreadsheetindicating the member counties averaged effective tax rate increases of 3.1 percent in 2014; 3.2 percent in 2015; and 0.7 percent in 2016. We also queried the Texas Municipal League,which says it represents most of the states cities, and whose legislative counsel, Bill Longley, emailed spreadsheets he described as based on effective city tax ratesposted by the Texas state comptrollers officefor a couple of recent years. The sheets show, Longley noted, that the vast majority of cities havent been increasing their tax rates above the current 8 percent rollback rate. According to the sheets, in2014and2015, respectively, about 21 percent of the states cities adopted effective rates equal to or exceeding 8 percent. And, in keeping with SB 2s proposed 5 percent rollback rate, how many cities lately have escalated rates that much or more? According to the sheets, 38 percent (382 of 1,002 cities) in 2014 and 39 percent (376 of 963 cities) in 2015. In both cases, Longley wrote, more than 60 percent of cities were under a 5 percent rollback rate, if it had been in place. Texas A&M expert For an outside perspective, we askedJim Gaines, chief economist of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, to appraise Bettencourts analysis and chart. By phone, Gaines said TTARA presented an accurate figure on its spreadsheet for a median-valued Texas home. But Gaines called highly questionable the assumptions behind the dollar figures in Bettencourts chart--both of local governments uniformly and annually driving up effective tax rates 8 percent without a change in law and of such governments under SB 2 all increasing rates 5 percent year after year. Counties, for instance, dont act identically, Gaines said. Each county is going to be unique, he said. Comptroller makes no homeowner savings estimate Next, we checked thefiscal noteon the Senate-approved version of SB 2 that was public by the time Patrick spoke (a more recentversionappeared May 19, 2017). The March 16, 2017,note, prepared by the advisory Legislative Budget Board staff, states up front that the financial effects of reducing the rollback rate cant be estimated. However, it also says, the table below is a hypothetical example of potential costs of the bill to counties, cities, and special districts based in part on assuming that no voters approve rates exceeding the 5 percent rollback rate and that future rate-setting practices would be similar to the rate-setting practices demonstrated in the available historical tax rate data. And in fiscal 2019, the first year of tax effects, cities, counties and special districts would lose nearly $199 million in revenue, the comptrollers office estimated, an indication of some taxpayer savings, it seemed to us. The  hypothetical shows additional costs to affected government entities in subsequent years. Does the hypothetical lost revenue, we wondered, mean the comptroller got a fix on how much homeowners and other property taxpayers might save? By phone, a spokeswoman for the comptrollers office, Lauren Willis, said the agency has not estimated particular savings for homeowners. Tim Wooten, a comptroller consultant who worked on the table, told us by phone thats because we cant predict what local taxing entities will do in setting rates or if voters indeed will reject all increases at the polls. We asked Wooten to unpack how he reached the hypothesized revenue losses. Wooten said he applied the SB 2 limits to 2015 tax rates set by the targeted entities, finding that in that year, 60 percent of cities and special districts and 70 percent of counties did not set rates high enough to touch off the rollback elections envisioned in SB 2. Wooten said too that a lot of the remaining government entities would have sustained small 2015 losses in revenue if SB 2 had been law then. Bettencourt stands by $20,000-plus figure Following up, we asked Bettencourt if most local entities covered by SB 2 dont reach existing or proposed rollback tax rates, arent homeowner savings impossible to precisely forecast? Of course, Bettencourt saidin writing, because we are dealing with future projections to a 20-year degree. However, downward pressure on property tax rates means tax rate reductions across the board in probability. When we said it looked to us like his projected homeowner savings were based on unrealistic assumptions about all the affected government entities maximizing tax rates every year, Bettencourt replied: Disagree strongly, urging us to revisit the spreadsheet he attributed to TTARA. Our ruling Patrick said legislation targeting local tax rate growth will result in the average Texas homeowner saving $20,000 a year over 20 years. Thats an absurd amount. Even if we look at what Patrick purportedly meant to say  $20,000 over 20 years  we find major flaws in the assumptions underlying that calculation. To reach that amount, one must assume that every city, county and special taxing district will raise tax rates by 8 percent every year without this legislation in place and by 5 percent a year with it. Neither assumption is in line with recent history, making the total savings figure highly suspect, at best a wild guess. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CORRECTION, 9:55 a.m., May 24, 2017: Thanks to a reader's nudge, we amended this story to correct our description of the second tax-rollback savings chart provided  by Bettencourt. This revision did not affect our rating of the claim. Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth: claim     Earlyview.net is one of many "prank" web sites. These sites allow you to create your own fake news story with a few clicks. Users choose a picture, write a headline and description, and then the web site formats the information so that it resembles a genuine news item, which you can then share on Facebook:   April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube: YouTube We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp  April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017 May 1, 2017  April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media: Fox A meme of uncertain origin alerted readers in March 2019 to the growth of the Muslim population within the U.S., warning that "in twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President":  The literal interpretation of this message  that by the year 2040 Muslims will comprise a large enough proportion of the U.S. population they could elect a particular person to the U.S. presidency regardless of how the rest of the country voted  is woefully wrong according to current estimates and projections. The Pew Research Center estimated in January 2018 that about 3.45 million Muslims of all ages were living in the U.S. in 2017, constituting about 1.1% of the total U.S. population. Pew also projected that by 2050  well more than the 20-year period posited by the meme  the U.S. Muslim population would reach 8.1 million, or 2.1% of the nations total population. estimated While 2.1% of the total population may constitute a significant voting bloc, obviously such a bloc would not be nearly large enough to determine the results of a nation-wide election all on its own. Even under the United States' electoral college system for electing presidents, which does not directly depend on popular vote totals, a candidate would still require the support of at least 23 percent of voters to reach the White House. Even that modest figure is more than 10 times greater than the projected Muslim proportion of the U.S. population in 2050. electoral college Moreover, even the modest Muslim population is at a disadvantage when it comes to the electoral college system, as Muslims are not evenly distributed around the U.S. According to Pew, some metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., have sizable Muslim communities, and "certain states, such as New Jersey, are home to two or three times as many Muslim adults per capita as the national average." But other states are home to far fewer Muslims. Regardless, without radical changes in immigration laws and patterns (or fecundity), it's simply not plausible that "in twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President." Even if such a huge shift in the religious make-up of the U.S. population were possible in such a relatively short timeframe, it's unclear what readers could or should do in response to the meme's exhortation for them "to make a difference." Repeal the First Amendment's religious liberty protections in order to bar Muslims from voting? Encourage non-Muslim women to engage in a "baby race" to out-populate Muslims? Pass legislation against demographics? For those truly curious about Muslim voting patterns in the U.S., we note the Pew Research Center reported in November 2018 that, "Many more U.S. Muslims identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the GOP (66 % vs. 13 %), but the share who are Republican has held steady over the last 10 years, including after the election of President Donald Trump ..." So Muslim voters could conceivably tip an election in favor of a particular major-party candidate in conjunction with that party's base of voters, but they will not be sufficiently numerous to elect a candidate on their own any time in the next few decades. voting patterns https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/ https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/06/republicans-account-for-a-small-but-steady-share-of-u-s-muslims/ Mohamed, Besheer.  "Republicans Account for a Small But Steady Share of U.S. Muslims."
  Pew Research Center.  6 November 2018. Mohamed, Besheer.  "New Estimates Show U.S. Muslim Population Continues to Grow."
  Pew Research Center.  3 January 2018. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "How to Win the Presidency with 23 Percent of the Popular Vote."
  NPR.  2 November 2016. UPDATE, Oct. 14, 3:30 p.m.:This fact-check has been updated to include additional comment from Kimberly Klacik. The rating is not changed. Conservative commentator Kimberly Klacik posted a photograph of empty supermarket shelves, with a hashtag falsely suggesting they were depleted by President Joe Bidens policies. A look at #BuildBackBetter, Klacik wrote above the photograph in the Oct. 13 post shared on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The hashtag was an apparent reference toBuild Back Better,Bidens COVID-19 relief, economic and infrastructure plan. Supply chain disruptions have affected grocery stores throughout the pandemic and continue to hit some U.S. markets especially hard, theWall Street Journal reported in August. But the photograph that Klacik shared is not from a U.S. store, nor was it taken during the Biden administration. Kimberly Klacik's Oct. 13 tweet, since deleted, was missing context. The giveaway was the prices shown on the shelves. Theyrelistedin British pounds, not U.S. dollars. The original photograph appeared with aneditorial published by the Guardianon March 27, 2020, about supply-chain disruptions during the earliest wave of the pandemic. Empty shelves at a Tesco store in Worcester, the Guardians photo caption says. Klacik is a Republican who lost her 2020 campaign for a U.S. House seat representing most of Baltimore. She deleted the posts soon after posting them. Asked about the posts, she told PolitiFact: Build Back Better is used in the U.K. She didnt say whether her posts were meant to refer to U.K. stores or economic policies. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has used the same slogan and hashtag to describehis Conservative governments pandemic recovery plan. The Independentreportedthat Biden formally launched his plan first, but Johnson had been using the phrase throughout 2020. But the March 2020 photo long predated either leaders economic recovery plans. After this fact-check was published, Klasic claimed that she deleted the posts to prevent confusion. Even after Klacik deleted her tweet, screenshots of it remained online. PolitiFact was able to view the Facebook and Instagram posts via CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. They were flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) We rate the posts False. One of the several forms of political clickbait that has sprung up in the online world in recent years the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a form that has already appropriated the name of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Yet another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks is attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton: Sandra Bullock Bruce Willis Demi Moore   Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) gave voice to this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion expressed by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening Americas Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination, while discussing economic policy during a radio interview on 5 January 2018: expressed Decker rejected narratives crediting former President Barack Obamas economic policies with recently developing economic figures during Trumps presidential tenure, framing such assertions as absolutely crazy: You look at the unemployment numbers, and its 4.1 percent. I look at Obama and Bush kind of combined, when I look at this block of sixteen years. Anyone that says this is inheriting some kind of Obama economy, he had eight years, and in 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, absolutely crazy ... This idea that it has anything to do with Obama is absolutely crazy. Trump in one year is already better than sixteen years of those guys [i.e., George W. Bush and Barack Obama] put together, said Decker, pointing to a current 17-year high in consumer confidence. Kraychik, Robert.  "Brett Decker: Trump in One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together."
  Breitbart.  6 January 2018. In late 2015, as Donald Trump's presidential run began reaching a fever pitch, a few enterprising programmers created apps, pages, or browser extensionsfor peoplewho wanted to minimize their exposure to Trump, his fans, or both. exposure fans One such browser extension is called "Trump Filter." It was created by Rob Spectre,a self-described"Internet Mathemagician," who created the software with three settings ("Mild," "Aggressive," and "Vindictive") which the user could adjustbased on how strong his or her dislike of Trump might be. extension "I picked Trump for this extension in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in the media coverage around this election," Spectre told us. Even at this early stage with this wide field of candidates in the American presidential campaign, there is some research that suggests Trump is dominating 46% of all the headlines devoted to the election. Trump is dominating 46% of all the headlines Even finding other ideas behind the ridiculous notion of banning 1.6 billion people from entering the United States can be difficult to do on the Internet right now. I needed a way to turn the reality TV candidacy off  that's what I hope the Trump Filter does. For the rest of the field, that's really up to the developer community. I did publish the source code with a permissive license on Github  it is free for anyone to modify. It looks like a few developers are using it to create their own filters for other presidential candidates, some other politicians in other countries and, importantly the entire Kardashian family. publish the source code with a permissive license on Github a few developers are using it to create their own filters In the interest of science, we installed the extension, set it to "Mild," and tried it out on a recent articleabout Donald Trump: article   The filter worked exactly as advertised:   Spectrecreateda similar filter in 2011 to removementions of Derek Jeter from the user's internet. filter Presidential candidate Ted Cruzs campaign came out swinging directly at rival John Kasich for the first time in a TV ad. The attack ads are getting more direct, as the delegates in contention dwindle. This ad presents a series of facts to suggest that Kasich, as governor of Ohio, orchestrated shady deals to benefit his friends and campaign funders. Right before John Kasich was governor, he collected $611,000 from a Fortune 500 corporation, the ad says. After Kasich became governor, that same company received $619 grand in state tax breaks for job creation. But last year, the company laid off 100 Ohioans, even as its CEO cut a half-million-dollar check to Kasichs super PAC. John Kasich, not for us. To find out whether its fact or fiction, lets take each allegation one at a time. Kasich took money from a Fortune 500 company According to newsreports, in 2001 after leaving Congress, Kasich joined the board of directors of Worthington Industries, an Ohio steel processor and Fortune 500 company. Security and Exchange Commission filingsshowthat Worthington board members were paid $45,000 per year as a retainer, and $1,500 per meeting attended. Worthington also reimbursed board members for travel expenses and other out-of-pocket costs. The CantonRepositoryreportedthat Kasich quit the Worthington board upon winning the governors race in 2010, but was still owed deferred compensation from the board. Kasich received $611,000 total in deferred compensation from Worthington, and at least $103,000 of the total came after he had been sworn in as governor. That same company received $619,000 in tax breaks after Kasich took office In the first bill he signed as governor, Kasich made good on a campaign promise to attract investment to Ohio. He nixed the Ohio Department of Development and created a private, nonprofit corporation called JobsOhio, explaining that in order to lure companies to the state, government needed to move at the speed of business. Kasich designed JobsOhio to be funded by a lease on state liquor profits. He declared it exempt from public records requirements and state audits. And he made board appointments for JobsOhio a responsibility of the governor. To drum up job creation, JobsOhio reviews potential opportunities to offer incentives such as tax breaks, and sends its recommendations to the Ohio Tax Credit Authority for final determination. The tax credit authority has a five-member board, and three of its appointees, including the chair, are Kasichs. An Associated Press investigation found that, less than a year after JobsOhio was created, it recommended a series of tax incentives totalling $619,000 for Worthington Industries subsidiaries, which the state tax credit board awarded. Last year, the company laid off 100 Ohioans In March 2015, Worthingtonannouncedit was cutting 555 jobs nationwide, which included 115 in Ohio. The company blamed the loss of these jobs --manufacturing cabs for large agricultural and mining equipment -- on industry-wide downturns. Worthington spokeswoman Cathy Lyttletoldthe CantonRepositorythat any incentives the company receives are only paid when the company delivers the jobs it promised. She said that pursuing tax incentives is standard business practice, and Worthington received $400,000 in tax breaks under the previous, Democratic regime of governor Ted Strickland. Companys CEO donates half-million to Kasichs presidential bid The Center for Responsive Politicsconfirmsa $500,000 contribution from Worthington CEO John P. McConnell to the New Day 2016 PAC, via Internal Revenue Service records released November 30, 2015. Several of Kasich's board appointees stepped up with campaign donations as well. OpenSecrets.org shows that the wife of ethics committee chairman Merom Brachman, Judith, gave the maximum donation to Kasichs campaign, $2,700, in August 2015. John C. Boland, the chair of JobsOhio, donated the $2,700 max to Kasich in July 2015. JobsOhio board member Gary R. Heminger and his wife, Jane, each donated $2,700 to Kasich on the same day in October 2015. JobsOhio board member Lawrence J. Kidd and his wife, Cindy, each donated $2,700 to Kasich on the same day in August 2015. All together now Cruzs attack ad parrots a complaint filed with the Ohio Ethics Commission by Kasichs Democratic challenger in the 2014 election, Ed FitzGerald. The ethics commissionpassedon investigating FitzGeralds complaint. Chairman Brachman, who, like the other commissioners, was appointed by the governor, said that Kasich had provided enough information to conclusively rule out any conflict of interest. He added that actions by JobsOhio are not subject to the authority of the ethics commission. Rob Nichols, Kasichs spokesman, dismissed this Cruz ad as a one-hit wonder that only ran briefly in Wisconsin and is no longer airing. The ads four accurate, provable data points, arent in dispute, Nichols said. But he has a beef with the insinuation that any of the described actions were wrong, or even out of the ordinary. They didnt say, The governors corrupt, because that you could fact-check, Nichols said. Everything there is 100 percent, entirely above-board, but when you say it with a snarly voice over scary music, people think its inappropriate. Our ruling Cruzs attack ad links a series of headlines to suggest that as governor, Kasich rewarded his former business ties in exchange for political contributions. The ads tone is ominous, but the text is factual. What isnt explained is that everything in the ad has been the subject of prior complaints that did not provoke any regulatory action. Its beensuggestedthat an overhaul of state rules might preventsimilar situationsfrom arising, and similar allegations from dogging Ohio leaders. But thats a different ad, for another day. We rate these claims Mostly True.