Did WaPo Headline Call IS Leader al-Baghdadi an 'Austere Religious Scholar'?
On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly fielded reports about the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media along with criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z @washingtonpost #Albagdadi pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z  Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. here The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine.  archived links Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter saying that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly.  Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely served as the inspiration of a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users started to share an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three": For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN.   years-old image of Don Lemon Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019. Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019.
On 4 June 2019, Yahoo! Finance reported that as a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) enacted by the Trump administration, "the IRS pulled in an additional $93 billion for 2018 from taxpayers on individual income taxes than it did for 2017." With the tax law being a hot partisan topic, many readers who saw the headline online asked us whether it was true. reported In that article, Yahoo! Finance reported: The IRS collected $1.97 trillion in gross collections (the amount before refunds) for 2018. That figure stood at roughly $1.87 trillion for 2017. Refunds did increase this year  but not by much. The IRS refunded about $398 billion to taxpayers for 2018. For 2017, it was roughly $386 billion. And after refunds, the IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new laws passage. The numbers reported by Yahoo! Finance are accurate, cited from figures published by the IRS in its 2018 Data Book. Collections data for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 can be viewed in the following table, while 2017 refund data can be downloaded by clicking  here: Data Book here   However, it's still too early to tease out the long-term effects of the new tax law from 2018 data, according to Matthew Gardner, senior fellow and corporate tax expert at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan nonprofit organization that researches tax policy. Republicans had wanted to tell the story about new tax cuts fueling economic growth that would offset lost revenue, while Democrats had been eager to frame the new law as a gift to the country's wealthiest individuals and large corporations at the expense of average Americans. As Yahoo! finance reporter Kristin Myer pointed out on the news outlet's show "The First Trade," it appeared that taxpayers had "filled the gap" left by corporate tax cuts in 2018. "I would absolutely agree that if you look at the tax bill as written, unambiguously this is a shift away from taxing corporations toward taxing individuals," Gardner said. Gardner is a critic of TCJA because it cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent without fixing loopholes that corporations have long exploited. "We needed corporate tax reform, and we didnt get it. We just got corporate tax cuts," Gardner told us. However, irregularities that occurred in both fiscal years 2017 and 2018 can paint a misleading picture of the long-term impact of the TCJA. Among others reasons, 2017 tax filings were artificially depressed because the IRS granted filing extensions to victims of natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Conversely, filings were up in 2018 when those delayed tax returns were finally submitted. extensions Furthermore, the law went into effect on 1 January 2018, meaning it wasn't in force for the entirety of the fiscal year, which starts in October. "I wouldn't take these fiscal year 18 data very seriously as an indicator of what the tax cuts are doing in any sense," Gardner said. "No one should expect to fully see those effects emerge in the 2018 fiscal year. We have to wait until next year to really get a look at the impact on collections." Politicians on both sides of the aisle were anxious to see how the new law would affect tax refunds because, as Bloomberg reported, "Getting a tax refund is a springtime tradition that Americans love as much as Easter candy." And as Yahoo! observed, "In the end, many Americans saw modest increases in their paychecks throughout the year, but didnt notice. Instead, as people filed, many bemoaned getting smaller-than-anticipated refunds or even being hit with a 'surprise' tax bill." didnt notice 'surprise' tax bill Democratic lawmakers seized on the lower refunds, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) stating, according to Yahoo!, that "Many Americans depend on their tax refund to pay bills and make ends meet, but this tax season, working families will see smaller than expected returns and surprise tax bills -- because the Trump administration used smoke and mirrors in a shallow attempt to exaggerate the impact of their tax law on middle class families for political reasons." Myers, Kristin.  "American Taxpayers Paid Over $90 Billion More Under Trump Tax Law."
  Yahoo! Finance.  4 June 2019. Davison, Laura.  "Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumps Signature Law."
  Bloomberg.  15 March 2019. Lee, Jasmine C. and Sara Simon.  "How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill."
  The New York Times.  19 December 2017. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a nationally broadcast interview that Planned Parenthood does little more than profit from killing babies. Patrick, a Republican,appeared Oct. 19, 2015, on Your World with Neil Cavuto, a Fox News program. That wasthe day a Texas state official moved to cut off$3.1 million in annual Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of it federal aid, for contraception and health services. That came as a result, the official said, of videos showing doctors for the group altered abortion procedures to procure intact fetal tissue for researchers in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood, denying misconduct, commented that it was considering its options, including a lawsuit. Patrick, talking to Cavuto, said: Were not going to tolerate Planned Parenthood pretending, Neil, to be something theyre not... Cavuto: Do you think that Planned Parenthood does anything good? Patrick: No. I dont think they do anything good. Look, theyre nothing more than a referral service. They pretend to care about womens health. But they dont have professionals even giving any information to women except referring them to another clinic. They dont  have equipment. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. Cavuto: Well, I understand your passions, sir. But they do a little bit more than that. Patrick: Very little. Theres been debate about what the videos taken with hidden cameras by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group, show about sales of fetal tissue. But on Oct. 7, 2015,PolitiFact Florida rated Falsea claim that Planned Parenthood has now (been) found to also illegally sell baby parts. Federal law permits fetal tissue donations to researchers. Abortion providers also are allowed to charge a fee for facilitating such donations. We focused our sights on whether Patrick is right that Planned Parenthood solely provides abortions. To our request for backup information, Patricks spokesman, Alejandro Garcia, said by phone: We dont have anything further to add. Past fact checks In August 2015, PolitiFactrated Pants on Firea claim by Jeb Bush that Planned Parenthood is not actually doing womens health issues. That story said Planned Parenthood offers contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, prenatal services and cancer screenings, including breast exams, though not mammograms. In September 2012, PolitiFact Georgiarated Truea claim that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers. Earlier, in April 2011,PolitiFact rated Falsea claim that abortion services are well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does. That story, citing a Planned Parenthood fact sheet, concluded that abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, then the most recent year for which the group was reporting statistics. There is lately more up-to-date information. On Planned Parenthoods website, we spotted aBy the Numbers documentlast updated in July 2015 stating that 34 percent of its health services are contraceptive services and 3 percent are abortions. Another document,Services,states that in 2013, Planned Parenthood provided more than 4.4 million services related to testing men and women for sexually transmitted infections or diseases; more than 3.5 million contraception services; more than 935,000 services related to cancer prevention and detection; some 1.1 million pregnancy and prenatal services; 327,653 abortions; and nearly 132,000 other services. The most prevalent listed contraception service was reversible contraception for women (2.1 million services). The most common cancer screening was breast exams/breast care (487,029 services). That story said that a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood health centers provide clinical breast exams and refer patients to facilities with technicians for mammograms based on breast exams, age or family history; she said Planned Parenthood also refers women to breast specialists when a potential abnormality is found and follow-up tests are needed. According to the July 2015 list, Planned Parenthoods most common pregnancy services in 2013 were pregnancy tests (1.1 million services). Other identified services include HIV tests (704,000 services); emergency contraception kits (1.4 million services) and Pap tests (378,692 services). A longer view: Nationally from 2006 through 2013, the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood essentially held steady, with marginal increases and a modest peak in 2009, according to an Oct. 1, 2015,PolitiFact article. That story presented a chart showing how the number of specific services provided by Planned Parenthood went up or down from 2006 to 2013, based on Planned Parenthoods annual reports from 2006 to 2013 (though a report from 2008 didnt turn up): Another chart, likewise drawing from the annual reports, showed counts for abortion and non-abortion services provided by the group:  Caveats Per all these figures, its worth repeating caveats offered by PolitiFact in 2011: --First, many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthoods use of services as its yardstick likely decreases abortions prominence compared with what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion above 3 percent in the calculations. --Second, Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, though the group says each affiliates numbers are independently audited. This basically means observers must accept their accuracy more or less on faith. Planned Parenthood In Texas To our inquiry about Patricks claim, Yvonne Gutierrez of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes,which saysit battles to protect womens health care access, said the same range of services are offered in Texas by the group. Gutierrez emailed us an undatedPlanned Parenthood documentindicating that in 2013, its Texas clinics had 150,710 patients including 108,533 contraception patients. The document showed state-by-state counts in those categories and for Pap tests plus tests for sexually transmitted infections, breast exams and sex education and outreach. Gutierrez also emailed us achart, attributed to state agencies, distributed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The chart shows $3.1 billion in Medicaid spending on Planned Parenthood-provided services in the fiscal year through Aug. 31, 2015. That spending covered Medicaid reimbursements and payments through health plans for patients who went to Planned Parenthood clinics, Gutierrez said. We also asked Gutierrez about Planned Parenthood in Texas making fetal tissue available for research. Planned Parenthood Greater Texas and Planned Parenthood South have never participated in fetal tissue research projects, she replied by email, and have no plans to do so. While Planned Parenthood Center for Choice (in Houston) does not currently participate in a fetal tissue study, they have taken part in such worthy studies in the past, following all laws and the highest medical and ethical standards. These studies hold the potential to cure disease and save lives. They last partnered with UTMB, the University of Texas Medical Branch, on a study to prevent miscarriage. Our ruling Patrick said Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a referral service. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. To the contrary, Planned Parenthood provides family planning and other womens health services, including abortions and theres been no confirmation it sells body parts. We rate this incorrect and ridiculous statement 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. In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of articles which claimed that the United States had "led the entire world" in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, contribute significantly to global warming.  contribute On Feb. 13, the right-leaning website The Daily Wire published an article with the headline "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." That piece reported as follows: article "The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. 'The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis  a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,' The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. 'US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.' On the same day, the right-leaning website Breitbart published a similar article with the headline "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019," writing: article "The United States led the world in tackling CO2 emissions last year while combining that singular success with solid economic growth, a new report reveals. It has also been confirmed while the U.S. was hitting its climate goals, at the same time '80 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly' to global increases." On Feb. 11, the right-leaning Washington Examiner wrote that "U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000." That prompted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to tweet: wrote tweet "FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 oclock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000."   Based on the data contained in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) February 2020 report, it would be accurate to say that in 2019 the U.S. had the largest year-on-year reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country, in absolute terms. However, claiming  as The Daily Wire and Breitbart did  that the U.S. had "led the world" or was "the global leader" in reducing emissions that year, risked giving readers the mistaken impression that the U.S. had performed better than any country when it came to reducing CO2 emissions. This was not the case, because the U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions by just 2.9%, while other countries and regions fared better. Germany, for example, achieved a year-on-year reduction of 8% in its CO2 emissions.  The source of the aforementioned claims was the IEA Feb. 11 data release entitled "Global CO2 Emissions in 2019." The IEA told Snopes that a more detailed, country-by-country breakdown of emissions data was not yet available, but would be published in March. However, some country- and region-specific details were already clear.  According to the report, the overall global trend was as follows: report "Global energy-related CO2 emissions flattened in 2019 at around 33 gigatonnes (Gt), following two years of increases. This resulted mainly from a sharp decline in CO2 emissions from the power sector in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar PV), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output." Although advanced economies (a category that includes the U.S., the European Union, Australia, Japan, Canada, and others) experienced positive economic growth in 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions also fell, on average, in those countries and regions. The U.S. produced around 4.8 Gt (gigatons/billions of tons) of CO2 in 2019. That was 140 Mt (megatons/millions of tons) fewer than it produced in 2018  the biggest single absolute reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions by any country. The U.S. produced around 2.9% less CO2 in 2019 than it did in 2018.  The IEA report added that: "US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather." The large absolute reduction in CO2 emissions in the United States in 2019 is in part a function of the sheer volume of CO2 produced there (which is in part determined by the large size of the U.S. economy). By contrast, its rate of emissions reduction was not as significant as that achieved in other countries and regions. For example, the IEA report explained that Germany achieved a year-on-year reduction in CO2 emissions of 8%, while Japan's emissions fell by 4.3%  significantly greater rates of decline than the 2.9% achieved in the U.S.  Despite having an overall CO2 output that is almost 40% smaller than that of the United States (2.9 Gt vs 4.8 Gt), the European Union still managed to achieve a greater absolute reduction in emissions than the U.S. in 2019 (160 Mt vs 140 Mt). That was because emissions fell at a significantly greater rate in the EU than in the U.S. (5% versus 2.9%).  It's true that, according to the IEA's February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore "led the entire world" or was a "global leader" in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did.  As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  "The Causes of Climate Change."
  Accessed 19 February 2020. Saavedra, Ryan.  "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  The Daily Wire.  13 February 2020. Kent, Simon.  "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  Breitbart.  13 February 2020. Siegel, Josh.  "Demise of Coal in Rich Countries Brings Global Carbon Emissions to a Stall."
  Washington Examiner. 11 February 2020. The International Energy Agency.  "Data Release -- Global CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  11 February 2020. On 7 February 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Secretary of Education in the new Trump administration by a narrow 51-50 margin, with the tie-breaking vote being cast by Vice President Mike Pence. All of the votes approving DeVos were cast by Republican senators, leading some of her detractors to posit the theory that she had essentially paid for her position via campaign contributions. That theory was illustrated by several charts circulated online that allegedly documented the amount of money DeVos had contributed to various senators:  The above-displayed chart first appeared on Reddit, but the data it incorporates was taken from a report published by the Center for American Progress. That report included another chart showing the DeVos family's campaign contributions: Reddit  A similar report filed by the Center for Responsive Politics stated that "Betsy DeVos and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs" since 1989: report In the 2016 cycle alone, the family had given at least $10 million as of late October to a host of GOP candidates and committees. Much of that  $4.4 million  went to super PACs: those supporting the White House bids of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, and the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund and the super PAC started by Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads; the latter two groups helped support numerous Republicans in tight House and Senate races. However, these charts don't show how much Betsy DeVos personally contributed to Republican campaigns.  A second chart from the Center for Responsive Politics documented that Betsy DeVos herself was only responsible for about 7% of these contributions:  It should also be noted that these charts tally cumulative donations made over the span of two and a half decades (although the 2016 campaign cycle comprised the bulk of those donations). None of this information in itself establishes that the contributions were made with the intent of gaining office for Betsy DeVos, or that they had that effect (intended or not).  Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, received $43,200 from the DeVos family but voted "No" during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing. And although nearly all the Republican senators who had received contributions from the DeVos family voted "Yes," so did all the Republican senators who had not received any contributions from the DeVos family. The Washington Post posited a much more likely explanation for the confirmation vote breakdown  partisanship: posited If Democrats controlled the Senate, DeVos would have lost her confirmation. Theres every reason to believe that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell let [Susan] Collins and Murkowski vote no on DeVos for political reasons, holding enough votes in reserve to assure shed win. The motivation was partisan support for a Republican nominee, not that a small fraction of his past campaign financing depended on DeVoss generosity. The Washington Post also noted that while the DeVos family contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, their contributions constituted only a sliver of the total money raised by those campaigns:  It's no secret that DeVos and her family have been major donors to the Republican Party over the last few decades. In 1997, DeVos wrote that her family was the "largest single contributor of soft money" to the Republicans: I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party. Occasionally a wayward reporter will try to make the charge that we are giving this money to get something in return, or that we must be purchasing influence in some way. [...] They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections. During DeVos' confirmation hearing in January 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders asked her about how much her family had contributed to the Republican Party over the years, and she averred that an estimate of about $200 million might be accurate: confirmation hearing Sanders: Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years? DeVos: Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I dont know. Sanders: I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark? DeVos: Collectively? Between my entire family? Sanders: Yeah, over the years. DeVos: Thats possible Sanders: Okay. My question is, and I dont mean to be rude. Do you think, if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family has not made hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions to the Republican Party, that you would be sitting here today? DeVos: Senator, as a matter of fact, I do think that there would be that possibility. Ive worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years to be a voice for students and to empower parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, primarily low-income children. Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told Politico that the DeVos family's contributions were made legally and were properly disclosed: Politico All of that is disclosed, Alexander said. You can ask those senators and evaluate it yourself. Thats the reason we have limits on campaign contributions and we have disclosures of those things. A spokesperson for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was singled out for having received nearly $100,000 from the DeVos family, defended his acceptance of those contributions: singled "People contribute to Senator Rubio's campaign because they support his agenda. Ms. DeVos is a strong supporter of empowering parents and providing educational opportunity for all, policies Senator Rubio has supported for over a decade. Her nomination was opposed by Democrats who take millions of dollars from the big unions obsessed with denying school choice to low-income children.  Brown, Emma.  "With Historic Tiebreaker from Pence, DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "Betsy DeVos Says It's 'Possible' Her Family Has Donated $200M to Republicans."
  Forbes.  17 January 2017. Bump, Phillip.  "The DeVos Vote Is a Bad Case Study for the Power of Campaign Contributions."
  The Washington Post.  7 February 2017. Stratford, Michael.  "DeVos Heads Into Confirmation with a Megadonor's Advantage."
  Politico.  20 December 2016. Noland, Jack.  "Betsy DeVos and Her Big-Giving Relatives: Family Qualifies as GOP Royalty."
  Center for Responsive Politics.  1 December 2016. Boser, Ulrich.  "Conflicts of DeVos."
  Center for American Progress.  12 January 2017. In June 2022, viral social media posts claimed that police in Wilmington, North Carolina, had "escorted" protesters from the far-right Proud Boys group towards an LGBTQ reading event for children, at a local public library. For example, on June 22, trans rights activist Erin Reed posted several photographs to Twitter, along with the following description: posted Proud Boys stormed the Pine Valley Public Library in Wilmington, North Carolina. I did some research from people who witnessed things on the ground and took pictures, and it would seem that not only was the Sheriff's office ineffective - they ESCORTED the proud boys to the room!   Also on Twitter, @wapplehouse shared similar photos and wrote:  shared similar photos the fucking Proud Boys showed up to a local Pride story time event today for 7 year olds and to the surprise of absolutely no one were escorted into the building and right to the room it was being held in by the [New Hanover Sheriff's Office]. A spokesperson for the New Hanover Sheriff's Office (NHSO) firmly denied to Snopes that any officer had "escorted" the Proud Boys towards the event. The spokesperson told Snopes the agency had video footage which corroborated that assertion, but its public release was unlikely because of the demands of North Carolina state law.  demands of North Carolina state law Either way, no one has so far made public any evidence that definitively establishes the truth of that law enforcement agency's role in the June 21 incident. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If relevant evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.  The event in question was an LGBTQ "Pride reading time" for children, and took place at Pine Valley public library in Wilmington, North Carolina, on June 21.  It was protested by local members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group. Earlier in June, several of that movement's leaders were charged with seditious conspiracy over their alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.  far-right group charged with seditious conspiracy More broadly, the summer of 2022 had seen a rising tide of homophobia and transphobia in the U.S., with a particular rhetorical focus on purportedly protecting children from "groomers"  a homophobic slur with a long and odious ancestry.  long and odious ancestry The photographs and descriptions that formed the basis of viral "police escort" claims were originally published by Angie Smith Kahney, who was present at the library at the time of the protest.  In a series of Facebook and Instagram posts, she shared pictures of NHSO deputies talking with protesters, as well as walking and standing near them. In one, she wrote that the sheriff's deputies had "led the Proud Boys and their entourage right through the library TO THE ROOM FULL OF CHILDREN..." talking with protesters walking she wrote Snopes put those allegations  that police had "escorted" the Proud Boys into the library and/or towards the room where the event was taking place  to Lt. JJ Brewer, a spokesperson for the NHSO. Brewer firmly denied them, saying "That's 100 percent incorrect." Rather, he said, an NHSO supervisor had endeavored to walk ahead of the crowd of protesters and make sure they could not enter the room where the Pride reading time event was taking place. According to Brewer, while the protesters were legally permited to enter the main library building, they would have needed to be properly registered, and accompanied by children, in order to attend the event itself.  He added that none of the protesters ever entered that room, nor did they attempt to enter it, and "at no time did they cause a disturbance in the library." We asked Smith Kahney for her response to those assertions, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. However, in an earlier Facebook post, she insisted that the Proud Boys were indeed disruptive and intimidating inside the library, and shouted obscenities at children and their parents, and said it was library staff  rather than sheriff's deputies  who ensured the protesters did not have access to the room. earlier Facebook post Snopes also asked New Hanover County officials for their account of the events that took place at the Pine Valley library  which is operated by the county  on June 21.  In a statement provided to Snopes, Linda Thompson, the county's chief diversity and equity officer, said the protesters only entered the library building after the reading event had concluded, although some attendees still remained inside the room: ...After the Storytime program had ended, several members of the protesting group wanted to come inside. Anyone from the public is permitted inside the building as long as they are not actively protesting or disturbing other patrons, based on the library's code of conduct.  The library director came inside with them and deputies quickly made their way to the door of Storytime, to ensure safety for library patrons and staff who were still in the room. The members of the protesting group were not allowed in the closed room where the event had been held and families were still in, and there was no disturbance inside the building.  Sheriffs deputies and library staff also provided help to parents and kids who were still in attendance (some had left already) on where to exit the library following the event. Parents and children were not in danger at any time. Video footage will likely be required in order to definitively answer questions about the NHSO's role in the incidents, and whether or not they "escorted" Proud Boys towards the event. So far, such footage has not been published, and it is not clear what actions and events are shown in the still images posted online by Smith Kahney. Brewer told Snopes that the sheriff's office did have such footage, and that it clearly demonstrated that deputies did not "escort" the protesters towards the room, so that they might intimidate or harass attendees at the Pride event.  However, as Brewer himself pointed out, North Carolina has unusually strict rules around the publication of police bodyworn camera footage. Police, for example, cannot unilaterally release such footage, but a judge can authorize its release. Brewer told Snopes it was therefore not likely that the bodycam footage would imminently be made public.  unusually strict rules Until or unless relevant evidence does become available, our rating remains "Unproven." Groomers Rhetoric Targeting LGBTQ People Nothing New. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/. Accessed 23 June 2022.  Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach. 6 June 2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and.  Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To Stand Back and Stand By? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/. Accessed 23 June 2022. On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services  new tweet  Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k)  Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont."
CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History."
CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart."
MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement."
CNBC.28 June 2019. In 1991, as the cover art for Nirvana's second studio album  a now iconic photograph of a naked baby in a pool swimming after a dollar on a fishing hook  was being prepared, there was some discussion about censoring the image by airbrushing out the nudity. Late front man Kurt Cobain reportedly replied by saying that they could censor it by placing a sticker over the baby's genitals along with the statement: "If you're offended by this you must be a closet pedophile." This quote resurfaced in August 2021 when the model who portrayed the baby, Spencer Elden, filed a lawsuit against the band claiming that he was exploited and that the artwork bordered on child pornography.  resurfaced filed a lawsuit against the band   This is a genuine quote from Cobain.  Art Director Robert Fisher was one of the first to suggest that the baby's genitalia could be censored if anyone thought that it would be problematic. A photograph showing early concept art for the album's cover includes two written comments by Fisher.  Fisher wrote: "If anyone has a problem with his dick we can remove it."  Image via cait22888 on Flickr  Flickr Cobain responded to Fisher's comments by saying that they could censor the nudity with a sticker, reading "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." This incident is recalled in a passage from Michael Azerrad's book "Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana." Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana. The only thing was, the baby's penis was quit visible. "If there's a problem with his dick," Fisher said, "we can cut it off." Some people in the Geffen/DGC sales department did worry that the traditionally conservative chain stores might object to the penis and Fisher even went so far as to begin preparing cover with the penis airbushed out. Kurt had anticipated some outcry as well, and has already composed some copy to put on a sticker over the problematic member. It read, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." Cobain recounted his version of these events during an interview for "Hot Metal" with journalist Robyn Doreian in 1991. In Cobain's version, he doesn't quite take credit for the idea, instead saying that "we prepared" to deal with censorship issues with a sticker.  interview As with most artists signed to the Geffen label, Nirvana have complete artistic control over everyting they do. "I designed out T-shirts, and we have had control over things like how long we tour and who we tour with, and we had control over what songs we recorded." Whilst on the subject of the aesthetically pleasing cover of Nevermind, I enquire as to whether the boy is actually a photo of Kurt as a little tacker. "No, it's not," he remarks drly. Has there been any trouble from censorship groups such as the PMRC for blatantly displaying a willy on the cover? "No, surprisingly not. We prepared to alleviate that problem if anyone were to freak out about it by putting a sticker on it saying, "if you are offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.'" The sticker wasn't needed in the end as the album was released without any alterations to the baby's body. But now, just over 30 years after the album's release, the band is being sued, as Elden alleges that the picture violates child pornography laws.  Elden alleges Sources: In December 2020, roughly nine months after Louisville police fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her apartment during a botched drug raid, a ceramic artist erected a statue memorializing the 26-year-old Black woman in downtown Oakland, California. But shortly after the bust's installation near City Hall, reports surfaced online alleging a person or group had smashed the sculpture into several pieces. Breonna Taylor botched drug raid   The reports were true. About two weeks after sculptor Leo Carson of the Bay Area placed the sculpture in the downtown plaza to support the Black Lives Matter movement, the ceramic memorial was found significantly damaged on Dec. 26, and the Oakland Police Department was investigating the vandalism, according to news reports and Carson's posts online. was investigating news reports In an Instagram post and GoFundMe page to fundraise for a new statue, Carson called the damage "an act of racist aggression." Instagram post GoFundMe page   The artist's GoFundMe page titled, "Rebuild the Breonna Taylor Sculpture in DT Oakland," read: After spending months creating this artwork it was incredible to see the community and neighbors taking photos and enjoying it. Now I am devastated and enraged to see it in pieces. This was an act of racist aggression and we need to show them we will not stand for it. The police department had not identified any suspects nor a possible motive for the destruction as of this writing.  Sharing a news story and Carson's online fundraiser, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf denounced the vandalism in a Dec. 28 tweet, writing: "It's a vicious attack against the light + justice sought in Breonna Taylor's name. We will keep moving forward; Oakland will not tolerate acts of hatred." news story tweet At the time of this report, Carson's online fundraiser had surpassed its goal of $5,000 for a new bronze statue "to prevent further damage" and claimed to donate the excess funds to Taylor's family. For a full explanation of the circumstances surrounding Taylor's death, which was at the center of protests against racism and police brutality in summer 2020, see our investigation here. circumstances see our investigation here 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 In early March 2021, Ari Fleischer, a media commentator who served as White House press secretary for former U.S. President George W. Bush, said on Twitter that New York's requirement that residents show ID before getting a COVID-19 vaccine was just as "sensible" as requiring people to show identification to vote . said a COVID-19 vaccine  hurdles require We can verify that Fleischer's tweet is real, while also pointing out that Fleischer is attempting to create an equivalency between two different issues when none exists. The state of New York is vaccinating residents in a phased rollout because of limited vaccine supply. Therefore, residents must make appointments to receive their shots and provide documentation showing that they are the person with the appointment, and that they are eligible for the vaccine during a given phase, based on factors like age and and type of employment. The elderly, along with essential workers and health care employees, have been prioritized. phased Voting, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Voting is a constitutional right that forms the basis of the U.S. system of government. Unlike COVID-19 vaccines, access to voting isn't limited on the supply side so much as it is controlled by legislators who have the power to either make the process easier or more difficult. Access to voting, especially for demographic groups that have been historically excluded from it, has been an ongoing flashpoint in American politics. The issue gained new urgency in the wake of the November 2020 election, when a disinformation campaign pushed by former President Donald Trump falsely alleging widespread voter fraud incited a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Since then, Trump's fellow Republican legislators in many states have rushed to create new requirements for voters. Although they argue such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, critics point out such fraud is rare. rushed rare Advocates for expanded voter access argue that voter ID laws are a voter suppression tactic because, as the American Civil Liberties Union states: states Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states [deem] acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card. Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True.