The Most-Read Fact Checks of 2013

The Most-Read Fact Checks of 2013 January 10, 2014

PolitiFact has a list of the 10 most read fact checks of 2013 on their site. At #10 is President Obama’s absolutely laughable claim that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court is “transparent.” And at #1 is a chain email that is so monumentally idiotic that it’s almost hard to believe anyone could fall for it.

Dhimmitude — I had never heard the word until now. I typed it into Google and started reading. Pretty interesting. It’s on page 107 of the health care bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be ‘gambling,’ ‘risk-taking,’ and ‘usury’ and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivable, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health insurance needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this on to your contacts. American citizens need to know about it.

Not a word of that is true, of course. But I’m sure we all have at least one low-information relative who buys into it.

"You get a lawsuit..You get a lawsuit.. Everybody gets a lawsuit."

Klayman Files Suit Against Warren, Buttigieg ..."
"A fine old rethuglikkkan tradition."

Klayman Files Suit Against Warren, Buttigieg ..."
"And now we must undo what they did and make it righter."

Limbaugh: Deep State Fooled Bush Into ..."
"A participation medal if there ever was one."

Limbaugh: Deep State Fooled Bush Into ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • jamessweet

    It makes me weep that a demonstrably false claim about the inclusion of a particular word in a PUBLICLY AVAILABLE document can go so viral. I mean — FUCK, none of these idiots actually looked at the document??? It’s amazing what kinds of lies people can get away with.

    By the way, in this post, Ed says he eats babies. Pass it on! (But don’t actually look…)

  • But I’m sure we all have at least one low-information relative who buys into it.

    Oh, would that it were only one!

  • John Pieret

    More specifically, this is an example of DIMitude!

  • Muslims must be pretty scary for all these people who don’t know them to make up such awful things about them. I mean, I can’t think of anything worse to accuse a group of is “getting free healthcare”. Those monstrous Muslins!

    And nobody this chain email was for ever bothers to check these things (I was told, once, “It came from someone I trust”. Nor did the the actual facts of whateveritwas change his mind).*


    * Obamacare. Page 107 is potentially the right section for it, though, so someone must’ve read it (not in Good Faith and not for comprehension, of course).

  • Trebuchet

    “Dhimmitude” has been on Snopes “Hot 25” list for a couple of years now. It actually sounds like a description of the minds of those who believe the story.

    At any given time, the Hot 25 generally consists of about 1/3 right wing chain e-mails like this, often started by “parody” sites like National Report, which actually exist just to stir up Tea Party hatred of Obama.

  • D. C. Sessions

    I don’t hear of these from relatives (or anyone else.) Then again, that may be because I have a simple solution when someone does: I offer them odds that it’s bogus.

    IN this case, it would be along the lines of “50 gets you 100 that the word is not only not on page 107, it’s not in the Act at all. Go ahead and search it — it’s up on the Library of Congress.” Tellingly, I never get any takers despite it being a quick and easy way to make a Benjamin. The excuses are entertaining, too.

  • Sastra

    Whenever I respond to some bit of highly praised nonsense sent over a group email by linking to snopes, the topic immediately dies … in my presence. The argument apparently continues elsewhere, though. Whoa — who forwarded this to Sastra??

    Yes, that’s where they went wrong.

  • dingojack

    In case anyone’s interested (or wants something to bore their fundie relatives into a coma):

    H.R.3590—107 (3) ELIGIBILITY AND AMOUNT OF TAX CREDIT OR REDUCED COST-SHARING.—In the case of an enrollee with respect to whom a premium tax credit or reduced cost-sharing under section 36B of such Code or section 1402 is being claimed, the following information: (A) INFORMATION REGARDING INCOME AND FAMILY SIZE.—The information described in section 6103(l)(21) for the taxable year ending with or within the second calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the plan year begins. (B) CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES.—The information described in section 1412(b)(2), including information with respect to individuals who were not required to file an income tax return for the taxable year described in subparagraph (A) or individuals who experienced changes in marital status or family size or significant reductions in income. (4) EMPLOYER-SPONSORED COVERAGE.—In the case of an enrollee with respect to whom eligibility for a premium tax credit under section 36B of such Code or cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 is being established on the basis that the enrollee’s (or related individual’s) employer is not treated under section 36B(c)(2)(C) of such Code as providing minimum essen- tial coverage or affordable minimum essential coverage, the following information: (A) The name, address, and employer identification number (if available) of the employer. (B) Whether the enrollee or individual is a full-time employee and whether the employer provides such min- imum essential coverage. (C) If the employer provides such minimum essential coverage, the lowest cost option for the enrollee’s or individ- ual’s enrollment status and the enrollee’s or individual’s required contribution (within the meaning of section 5000A(e)(1)(B) of such Code) under the employer-sponsored plan. (D) If an enrollee claims an employer’s minimum essen- tial coverage is unaffordable, the information described in paragraph (3). If an enrollee changes employment or obtains additional employment while enrolled in a qualified health plan for which such credit or reduction is allowed, the enrollee shall notify the Exchange of such change or additional employment and provide the information described in this paragraph with respect to the new employer. (5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRE- MENTS.—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemp- tion certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any require- ment or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information: (A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an indivcidual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Sec- retary shall prescribe.

    Maybe it’s hidden as an acrostic, or by using certain bible verses or something….


  • unbound

    Well, according to my wingnut relatives, Snopes and PolitiFact are just liberal spin machines anyways. Those relatives haven’t met a conservative conspiracy yet that they can’t agree with 100% (yes, they are still birthers…sigh).

  • dingojack

    Oops SOURCE.


  • dingojack

    BTW – the word ‘Dhimmitude’ doesn’t appear any where in “H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. There’s not one instance in over 900 pages.


  • Sastra

    unbound #9 wrote:

    Well, according to my wingnut relatives, Snopes and PolitiFact are just liberal spin machines anyways.

    My friends are wingnuts who go mostly in the other direction: Snopes is a spin machine of the Establishment. Or sometimes it’s guilty of dualism and fails to recognize multiple truths, becoming confrontational and fearful with its egoistic attachments to “facts.” Either; both.

    Unless it’s something they agree with.

  • dingojack

    unbound – cut & paste the above quote (#8) (with the source (#9)) in reply to their email. Offer them a reward of $50 if they can find the word ‘Dhimmitude’ any where on the page quoted in it’s entirety (p 107), with a bonus prize of $5000 if they can find it anywhere in the text of The Affordable Care Act.

    I’m guessing they’ll take up your challenge and try to read 900 plus pages of legalese*.

    😉 Dingo


    * (there’s no danger of actually having to part with a dime. It’s called ‘a sucker bet’)

  • unbound

    @dingojack – Oh, it is rare that they send me anything anymore. They’ve found that I don’t really have a problem researching and pointing out all the problems with what they send. The Snopes and PolitiFact comment was from probably 2 years ago. That said, I’m sure they got the Dhimmitude e-mail and bought it hook, line, and sinker, but they didn’t send it to me.

  • naturalcynic

    Ya’ think that they might have enough sense to use a find fearture?

    Actually, no, cuz’ MSFT is in on it.

  • dingojack

    naturalcynic – I’d be mightily surprised if fundies could find their own rectum (even if allowed to phone a friend).


  • lowkey

    My mother sends me (and everyone else on her contacts list) these kind of emails. There are even some that go so far as to link to Snopes claiming that it’s been verified. Clicking the link shows the opposite, but most of them won’t do it; they just accept it as true. It’s disheartening.


    When I received this email, I could not believe it…

    So, I checked with Snopes (not that they are so credible in everything, but…) I learned that it isTRUE:

    There has been change in U.S. military burial protocol! This is a letter that my good friend’s husband wrote today after his uncle’s funeral yesterday. If Obama does not want his name associated with our military, he does not deserve to be “The President of the United States “. – Alice Frankovitch

    Please Remember this when voting in November!

    [Rest of the email deleted for brevity]

  • Michael Heath

    While this conservative viral email is obviously dishonest and idiotic, it is not an outlier but instead a standard-issue conservative viral email. This is what we get when the culture is dominated by primitive religious beliefs and develops legions of authoritarians.

  • It makes me weep that a demonstrably false claim about the inclusion of a particular word in a PUBLICLY AVAILABLE document can go so viral. I mean — FUCK, none of these idiots actually looked at the document???

    If my experience in debating wingnuts about the ACA is any indication, they don’t seem to regard the actual contents of the document as being especially relevant. They seem to think that Obama will implement whatever nefarious policies he wants (which of course they are privy to). Or they think that there’s some hidden code in the document that negates all of its plain language, so what the document appears to say doesn’t matter. After all, it’s really big! Who knows what’s hidden in there? Some even intimate that there’s a separate, secret document, and that the one the President signed into law is just a smoke screen.

    Simply put, it’s like dealing with tax protestors; they don’t understand how the law works or that words mean what they say. They seem that the law works by magical incantations and rituals that are accessible only to the elect.