Did Senator Tom Cotton Call for Drug Testing for Social Security Recipients?
Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017.
In April 2017, rumors appeared on social media that former United States President Barack Obama had been arrested in Japan in connection with large quantities of cocaine purportedly found on his yacht:      The arrest rumor appeared to have originated via a 31 March 2017 blog post from Benjamin Fulford (who days earlier had claimed that the Japanese government was trying to kill him) that was further aggregated by other dubious web sites: originated claimed aggregated Former US President Barack Obama, in custody of the US military police, has informed on his drug dealing bosses, according to sources in Japanese military intelligence. As a result of this, an airplane filled with Afghan Heroin and North Korean amphetamines was impounded at Argyle International Airport on St. Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the sources say. The money raised from this drug flight was intended to be used to finance the operations of Daesh (formerly known as ISIS), the sources say. This impoundment follows the capture of an Obama linked ship containing 4.2 tons of cocaine, the sources note. At the bottom of the post was a citation referencing a 15 March 2017 post on conspiracy site WhatDoesItMean.com about Barack Obama's supposedly fleeing the scene of a drug bust that took place in the Caribbean on a "fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle" that was linked to the former president:  post Obama Flees After Massive Drug Bust Aboard Lady Michelle Vessel In Caribbean An intriguing Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that former President Barack Obama fled Washington D.C. this past Friday (10 March) traveling to New York City, Omaha (Nebraska), San Jose (California) and ending up in Hawaii  all occurring within 36 hours while he sought elite allies to defend him, and keeping him ahead of investigators from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the US Department of the Treasury (DoT) seeking to interview him about one of the largest drug busts in American history occurring in the Caribbean aboard a fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle.   4.2 tons of seized cocaine, worth an estimated $125 million, from the President Barack Obama linked fishing vessel named Lady Michelle on 16 February 2017 According to this report, nearly immediately upon taking office as President Donald Trumps Attorney General on 9 February, Jeff Sessions, as head of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), was handed a top secret file by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey detailing the nearly two-decade long crimes of 12 current and former security and intelligence officers belonging to the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) who for at least 18 years under both the Bush and Obama regimes had smuggled into the United States at least $100 million worth of cocaine. None this was true, as the "Obama drug bust" story originated with the WhatDoesItMean.com is a fake news conspiracy site, described by RationalWiki as follows: WhatDoesItMean.com fake news RationalWiki follows Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. The image used to illustrate the WhatDoesItMean article was taken from an earlier news report about a 16 February 2017 U.S. Coast Guard drug bust off the coast of Suriname that had nothing to do with Barack Obama or Japan: report The U.S. Coast Guard busted four men suspected of smuggling more than four tons of cocaine worth $125 million in the Atlantic Ocean. Officials said on Feb. 16 they intercepted a suspicious fishing boat off Paramaribo, Suriname. The 70-foot vessel was allegedly carrying numerous bales of cocaine, the Coast Guard said. Officials seized 4.2 tons of the drugs, worth an estimated $125 million in wholesale value. On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s. meme This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day: plan As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in.   An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life: article Mitch McConnell has been relentlessly working to roll back Medicaid and deprive millions of Americans of government-sponsored healthcare coverage for eight years now. But if it werent for the government, McConnell wouldnt be able to walk at all.  Young Mitch came down with a terrible case of polio as a child in Alabama. My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims, perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled for the rest of my life he admitted in a 2005 interview. But luckily for him, his mother took him 50 miles to the Warm Springs, where President Roosevelt won his own battle with polio and established a polio treatment center that was paid for by the public. President Roosevelt asked the people of America to send in dimes to the White House as part of his March of the Dimes foundation. Over two and a half million dimes were mailed in, and they paid for Mitchs physical therapy and treatment. A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story:  article How did Warm springs fund McConnells therapy, you ask? This was two decades before Lyndon Johnson launched federal health coverage by signing into law the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the mid-30s, Roosevelt and his law partner Basil OConnor founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation and started organizing fundraising balls around the country. By 1938, however, the balls grew less effective and the president needed a new strategy. Using a phrase coined by vaudeville entertainer Eddie Cantor, March of Dimes  a spin on the popular newsreel series March of Time  Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes foundation and launched a campaign asking the public to mail ten-cent donations to the White House. Within a month, Roosevelt received around 2,680,000 dimes. The campaign continued through WWII. McConnell started visiting Warm Springs in 1944. In other words, he overcame polio with the help of public money allocated by the White House. Mitch McConnell has often told the story of his childhood affliction with polio, and the role of FDR's Warm Springs rehabilitation center in his recovery. In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama.  memoir It's one of my life's great fortunes that Sister's home was only about sixty miles from Warm Springs, Georgia, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt had established a polio treatment center and where he'd often travel to find relief from the polio that paralyzed him at the age of thirty-nine. My mother took me there every chance she had. The nurses would teach her how to perform exercises meant to rehabilitate my leg while also emphasizing her need to make me believe I could walk, even though I wasn't allowed to. So it's clear that Mitch McConnell did indeed receive significant help  primarily in the form of physical therapy and physical therapy training for his mother  from the polio rehabilitation center established by Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Georgia.  However, neither this particular center nor the care given to McConnell were government-funded. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public.  1927 In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017). equivalent In September 1937, Roosevelt reconstituted the Warm Springs Foundation as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (as polio was then widely known); in January 1938, the directors of the foundation launched the first "March of Dimes", a phrase coined by vaudeville star Eddie Cantor who helped promote a nationwide fundraising drive which attracted the support of Hollywood stars as well as charitable middle-class families giving 10 cents each.  In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure. report Some aspects of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis perhaps reflect a more innocent time. For example, the hundreds of thousands of dimes sent by members of the public were processed at the White House and a cheque was given to Roosevelt, who then turned it over to O'Connor for distribution via the Foundation. However, in many ways the operation was a precursor of the professional, almost corporate style of non-profit fundraising and campaigning that has followed since. For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign.  year Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio. grants This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk  who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis  developed a successful polio vaccine.  Jonas Salk The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell's recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University.  Augusta University McConnell, Mitch. "The Long Game." (pg 9,10).
 Penguin Random House. 31 May 2016. New York Times. "$1,350,030 Raised for Warm Springs."
 New York Times Archive. 16 January 1938. New York Times. "Net of $1,021,034 to Paralysis Fund."
 New York Times Archive. 7 July 1938. New York Times. "Sport World Aids in Paralysis Drive."
 New York Times Archive. 27 December 1938. The bipartisan plan to raise the nations debt ceiling included formation of a 12-member congressional committee to consider cuts in spending and tax reform.After voting in support of the plan, Ohio's Sen. Sherrod Brown said in an interview that Congress needed to turn its focus to job creation exclusively. And he said that tax reform should close loopholes that the debt-ceiling deal didn't touch.For example, he said, They didnt close the tax loopholes for Wall Street hedge fund managers who pay a lower tax rate than does a sheet metal worker in Parma or a school teacher in Cleveland.That got PolitiFact Ohios attention. Could wealthy Wall Street investors have a lower tax rate on their compensation than average workers?We asked Brown's office how he supported his remark. Press secretary Allison Preiss responded with a pile of sources.Let's start the review by identifying our subject. Hedge funds are investment funds similar to mutual funds, but are not subject to the same rules and regulations, are typically more aggressive, and traditionally have been limited to wealthy investors. Most set very high minimum investment levels.Managers of hedge funds typically charge investors 2 percent for managing their money, meaning that a $10 billion hedge fund takes in $200 million in fees. Managers also can collect a percentage of the profits from trades they make, usually 20 percent.AR Magazine, the hedge fund trade publication, began estimating compensation in the industry a decade ago, the Reuters news agency said earlier this year, noting that calculating the earnings of top hedge fund managers involves a degree of guesswork and alchemy, since funds don't publicly disclose compensation.AR's annual report on the 25 richest hedge fund managers said they collected about $22 billion in compensation last year.Topping the charts in hedge fund pay was John Paulson of Paulson & Co., who earned a reported $4.9 billion. That is billion with a B, and that is for the year 2010.A study by the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the top 25 hedge fund managers combined appear to have earned more than all the CEOs of the companies in the S&P 500 combined. That study put the average pay at hedge funds for highly compensated employees -- not just the managers at the top of the scale -- at $3.2 million a year.Using the federal income tax rate schedule for 2010, a single individual earning $3.2 million (or $4.9 billion) would fall in the top tax bracket that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation, which is 35 percent. That rate starts at income of about $370,000.But hedge fund managers typically dont pay taxes on their income the same way other Americans do, as PolitiFact has noted before.The bulk of hedge fund managers income is typically considered carried interest -- that is, their share of profits from the funds they manage. When a fund has capital gains and those gains flow to the manager, they are taxed as a capital gain, not as ordinary income.The tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent on compensation that would be paid by everyone else, including other types of Wall Street managers. (The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers. )Hedge fund managers don't necessarily pay even 15 percent, however. They can pay no current income tax at all, by leaving their carried interest money in the hedge fund and deferring the tax bill to a later date -- even decades later -- when they eventually cash out of the fund.What about the other two individuals in Brown's statement?According to the most recent figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in May 2010, the average salary for a sheet metal worker in the Cleveland area, spanning Elyria to Mentor, is $47,200.According to a May 2010 survey by The Plain Dealer, using information from the Ohio Department of Education, the average teacher salary in Cleveland is $65,575.Using the federal income tax rate schedule, both single individuals and heads of households at those income levels would fall in the tax bracket of 25 percent.That 25 percent is higher than the capital gains rate of 15 percent that the carried interest tax loophole allows hedge fund managers to pay on their income.On the Truth-O-Meter, that gives Brown's statement a rating of True. In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks On Aug. 24, 2020, a Twitter user posted an image of U.S. President Donald Trump being watched over by cult leader Charles Manson and claimed that the president's supporters were sharing it on Facebook under the false impression that it actually showed Jesus:  posted an image The above-displayed tweet was shared more than 34,000 times and received more than 140,000 likes. As this claim circulated on social media, we started receiving queries asking if Trump supporters were truly sharing the image. One reader even asked if it had been shared by the RNC:  Is the RNC really posting this image of Charles Manson and Donald Trump photoshopped together to appear as if Manson is Jesus endorsing Trump? While it's certainly possible that a handful of Trump supporters have shared this image by accident, we found no record of it being shared on the social media pages of the Republican National Convention, the White House, or the GOP. While we have not perused the accounts of every elected Republican lawmaker, we can say that we have not encountered any high-profile Republican accounts sharing the image in earnest, nor any postings by Trump's supporters that were widely shared on social media.  Republican National Convention White House GOP The image of Manson and Trump appears to be a manipulated version of a painting that originally showed Trump and Jesus entitled "You are not Alone" that was uploaded to Fine Art America by Danny Hahlbohm on May 28, 2020. Here's a look at the original painting (left) and the manipulated version (right): Fine Art America   A third version of this painting was also circulated on social media. This alternate version, however, also depicts Jesus standing behind Trump, not Manson. Hahlbohm confirmed to us in an email that he was the artist behind this alternate version, explaining that this was just an earlier version of his painting he had since revised.  A third version of this painting Here's a comparison of Hahlbohm's painting from Fine Art America (left) and the earlier version (right): Fine Art America   To sum up: A painting of Jesus standing behind Trump was digitally altered to make it appear as if Trump were being watched over by cult leader Manson, not Jesus. While the Trump / Manson image went viral along with the claim that it was unknowingly being shared by Trump supporters, we could find no popular instances of Trump supporters sharing the Manson image in earnest. It appears likely that come November Rhode Islanders will decide whether to expand the states two slot parlors into full-fledged casinos. State legislators have already approved holding a referendum on a proposal to allow table games at Twin River, in Lincoln, and are considering doing the same for Newport Grand.On March 6, before the House passed legislation to put the Newport Grand question on the ballot, Rep. Robert Jacquard raised concerns about allowing casinos in Rhode Island.Let's face it: there are a lot of casinos across the country that have gone bankrupt, the Cranston Democrat said. Just because you give them a casino license is not a guarantee that you are going to save all this money for the state and guarantee all this revenue. It is just not true at all. Management is the most important factor.But doesnt the house always win? Have a lot of casinos around the country really gone bankrupt?We called Jacquard, who explained that hes not necessarily opposed to casinos in Rhode Island, but he does want to make sure that if the state opts to go down that route, responsible operators with a lot of experience in the industry are brought in.He told us that hes read about a number of casinos failing around the country, and although he hasnt kept a list, he recalls bankruptcies occurring particularly in the South.I know what I read in the paper, Jacquard said.We couldnt find a central repository of information on casino bankruptcies, but we did come across numerous news reports about casinos and their financial struggles.Donald Trump has filed four corporate bankruptcies -- in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009 -- in connection to his casinos in Atlantic City, N.J. Tropicana Entertainment, which operates casinos in Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, Mississippi and Indiana, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008 and 2009. Station Casinos, which owns or operates 18 casinos in and around Las Vegas, made a similar filing in 2009.And on a side note, Rhode Islanders will be familiar with the struggles of Twin River, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and emerged under new ownership the following year. Its not technically a casino, but it is a local reminder of the potential pitfalls of the gambling industry.I. Nelson Rose, distinguished senior professor of law at Whittier Law School, in Costa Mesa, Calif., who writes about gambling and legal issues, has kept a partial list of gambling companies that have closed or filed for bankruptcy protection in the last three years as the recession has dragged on. He has counted 18 companies so far.Rose said that other casino operators, including MGM Resorts International, Caesars Entertainment and Foxwoods, may not be facing bankruptcy but have struggled because of mounting debts and falling revenues.David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said gambling revenues in all major U.S. markets have declined since 2007 as discretionary spending has dried up.He also pointed to heightened competition in the gambling industry as another factor thats squeezing casinos. For example, Atlantic City has lost business to newer casinos in Pennsylvania, whose residents can now gamble closer to home instead of making the trip to New Jersey.Its in that sort of competitive market when management can be particularly important. Rose referred to Colorados experience in the early 1990s when 68 casinos opened in two or three years. A third of them eventually went bankrupt, and, said Rose, it turned out that the operators of those failed casinos had no previous experience in the industry.Our rulingGambling is a boom or bust industry. Even when times are good, casinos fail. And when times are bad, even more fail.As Schwartz told us, casinos definitely are not a sure thing. Good management matters  -- a point Jacquard made as well.We rate Jacquards statement True. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. In November 2019, an old clip from the children's popular show "Sesame Street" started to go viral on Twitter. The clip, which was viewed more than 8 million times in a few days, showed a child named "John-John" counting to 10 with a muppet in 1971, and then showed John-John's return to "Sesame Street" about 20 years later: One of my favorite @sesamestreet moments of all time... pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb @sesamestreet pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb  ?Kristina A. Holzweiss #HackingSchoolLibraries (@lieberrian) November 21, 2019 November 21, 2019 While many viewers were delighted that John-John appeared to have grown into an upstanding citizen and member of the U.S. Air Force, others claimed there was a bit more to the story: Many Twitter users pointed to a 2015 article published on I Love Old School Music as evidence that he'd been in trouble with the law. Here's an excerpt from that article, as well as a mugshot of a man named "John Bernard Williams": I Love Old School Music ... John ended up getting convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child in the state of Texas... ... Texas Department Of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry Records reveal that John sexually assaulted a 4 year old female child and that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, was released on parole and is now under a lifetime mandatory supervision by the state of Texas.   A man named John Bernard Williams truly is on the Texas Public Sex Offender registry. We also found that much of the known biographical information for "John-John" matched with the information of this offender from the Texas Department of Public Safety. the Texas Public Sex Offender For instance, a profile on "Airman John-John" published by the Air Force Service Information and News Center in 1989 identified him as "John Bernard Williams." That article also identified his mother by the first name of "Trina." This is also the name of convicted sex offender John Bernard Williams' mother, according to a 2000 opinion on Williams' court case. Air Force Service Information and News Center 2000 opinion We also know that John-John was born in 1969 because many news outlets reported that the viral "Sesame Street" counting clip was filmed in 1971 when he was just 2 years old. The Muppet Fandom Wiki provides a more specific date of birth for John-John (Sept. 24, 1969), but we have been unable to verify this information. If this information is accurate, though, John-John and John Bernard Williams share the exact same birth date. If it's inaccurate, we still know that they were born in the same year. reported Muppet Fandom Wiki Lastly, in 1998, The New York Times caught up with John-John for the 30th anniversary of "Sesame Street." That article noted that John-John was living in San Antonio, Texas. A year later, charges would be filed against a man named John Bernard Williams in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located, for the sexual assault of a child. San Antonio, Texas. The information we've gathered seems to show that John-John, the 2-year-old child who made multiple appearances on "Sesame Street," may be the same person who ended up on the offender list in Texas. However, it is possible that this is just a coincidence. Given the nature of the rumor, and the fact that we have been unable to definitively tie these two identities together (via family statements, social security numbers, fingerprints, etc.) we are rating this claim "Unproven." We've reached out to the Texas Department Of Public Safety and will update this article if more information becomes available. Ramos, Cindy.  "Grover San Antonian's 14 Years on 'Sesame Street' Influenced His Life."   San Antonio Express-News.  12 May 1998. Sutherland, Anna.  "Airman John-John."   Air Force Service Information and News Center.  1989. Martin, Brett.  "TELEVISION; Still a Bilingual Guy, But Without Muppets."   New York Times.  29 March 1998. iloveoldschoolmusic.com.  "Man Who Played Sesame Street Kid 'John John' Was Convicted Of Heartbreaking Crime Against Child."   22 October 2015. In June 2016, researchers at Columbia University and the French National Institute published a study concluding that nearly 60 percent of links shared on social media are never clicked and read  that people share news stories based on headlines alone. study And what does this have to do with asteroids hitting the earth? In July 2016, Yackler Magazine published an article bearing the clickbait title, "Scientists Say Giant Asteroid Could Hit Earth Next Week, Causing Mass Devastation". While the first two paragraphs of the article were dedicated to the terrifying doomsday event, the author eventually conceded that "nah," she was "totally messing with you": article Scientists have discovered a massive asteroid that is on course to hit the Earth next week, and are scrambling to find a way to divert the object. The asteroid has been named 2016-FI and measures approximately 1 km across. If it strikes a populated area is could wipe out entire cities and potentially devastate an entire continent or  nah. Im totally messing with you. Theres no asteroid (at least not about to strike next week). After the clickbait title and a little misinformation, Yackler Magazine provided some quotes from the study and explained that the article was published as a sort of experiment of their own. The article concluded with a call to its readers to use a color word while commenting to show that they had read the article: study   While many readers passed the test with, well, flying colors, others shared the article about a giant asteroid heading toward earth on Facebook: shared People are more willing to share an article than read it, study co-author Arnaud Legout said in a statement. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary, or a summary of summaries, without making the effort to go deeper. To reiterate: there's no giant asteroid heading to earth, and the frightening title was a "social experiment" to see how many people actually read the article. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015