Does Website for Wisconsin Republicans Say 'Prepare for War'?
On Jan. 12, 2021, news reports surfaced alleging a web page for Wisconsin's St. Croix County Republican Party told supporters to "prepare for war" despite urging from the state party to remove the message and the deadly insurrection by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol the previous week. web page U.S. Capitol   The reports were true. As of this report, the homepage for the local Republican group in northwestern Wisconsin read, "Si vis pacem, para bellum"  the Latin adage, "if you want peace, prepare for war." Then, underneath that heading, the page said in English: If you want peace, prepare for war. The phrase, originally coined in the 4th or 5th century, embodies the concept conveyed in earlier works such as Plato's "Nomoi", and carries with it a modern day interpretation of "Peace Through Strength", a cornerstone of conservative beliefs. Welcome to the digital battlefield. The message also perpetuated the conspiracy theory that "Democrats in concert with the Marxist left and a complicit mass media" were running a coordinated scheme to undermine conservative Americans and try to overturn Trump's 2016 presidential win, without providing proof to support the claims. The page also alleged Trump's political opponents colluded in an illegal scheme to block him from serving another presidential term, though numerous court battles and reviews by election security experts proved that did not happen. Rather, President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump under election laws outlined in the Constitution and federal and state statutes: He received at least 270 electoral votes. (See here for all of our fact-checking content related to 2020 voter fraud claims.) received at least See here for all of our fact-checking content related to 2020 voter fraud claims After those false claims, the St. Croix Republican Party's homepage said Trump radically changed the party, and that "patriots need to continue the fight" and "stand and be counted as a conservative warrior" to uphold the Constitution and remove "leftist tyrants" from elected positions in Wisconsin. According to online archives of the URL, stcroixrepubblican.org, the website at one point called for "eliminating" those political opponents instead of removing them. online archives The St. Croix County partys chairman, John Kraft, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the homepage included the phrase "prepare for war" before the deadly insurrection in defiance of Biden's presidential win on Jan. 6. He did not say when, exactly, the page was first posted, and did not respond to the local newspaper's question about whether he thought about taking down the message after the attack by right-wing extremists. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Kraft told the newspaper he "can't help what twisted inferences local Democrats choose to attribute to it." On Jan. 9, Kraft said on his Facebook page that its never been clearer that we are absolutely at war with the left," according to The Associated Press. The Associated Press A representative of the group did not respond to Snopes' request for an interview for this report, though we will post updates when, or if, someone returns our message. According to Wisconsin Republican Chairman Andrew Hitt, the state party does not control the local parties, and it asked St. Croix County Republicans to remove the call to "prepare for war" before the violent insurrection, though he did not specify a date for the request. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Especially in light of recent events, it's an ill-chosen phrase to express their sentiments," Hitt said. "We suggested at an earlier date they remove this, but they declined to take our advice."
In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth: claim     Earlyview.net is one of many "prank" web sites. These sites allow you to create your own fake news story with a few clicks. Users choose a picture, write a headline and description, and then the web site formats the information so that it resembles a genuine news item, which you can then share on Facebook:   April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube: YouTube We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp  April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017 May 1, 2017  April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media: Fox On 21 March 2016 the web siteWorldwide Science Stories published a post reporting that the discovery of an "alien mummy" in an Egyptian pyramid had been confirmed by archaeologists speaking under condition of anonymity: The mysterious creature was between 150 and 160 centimeters, and was found by archaeologist near Lahun when investigating small pyramid near the Dynasty doceaba of Senusret II. However, this fact was not discovered immediately. "Mummy of alleged alien, dating back more than 2,000 years, said a source from the Egyptian Department of Antiquities, which submitted the details and photographs of the mummy, but on condition of anonymity. The remains of the alien created a lot of controversy in the world. Some online sources say this is some kind of reptile because of the features that characterize these animals as their eyes too big oval. The inscriptions on the tomb of the mummy show that it was counselor to the king named Osirunet, meaning star or sent from heaven. What has fueled passions that it is alien ... The "anonymity" clause presented an immediate red flag, as it conveniently inhibited any nosy fact-checking of the claim. Another less obvious clue was the non-existence of any organization called the "Egyptian Department of Antiquities": the former Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), a branch of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, became the Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA) in 2011. That agency historically oversees the "conservation, protection and regulation of all antiquities and archaeological excavations" in Egypt. SCA MSA Worldwide Science Stories cited primarily unnamed sources in their article, identifying only an individual named "Dr. Victor Lubeck," who (like the "Egyptian Department of Antiquities") doesn't appear to exist.  exist But the largest clue to the claim's lack of credibility came in the form of reverse image searches. The "alien mummy" photograph first appeared online as early as 2008 and in its original incarnation (as a specimen purportedly discovered in Peru, not Egypt) depicted a far less extraterrestrial specimen: 2008  The original photograph circulated primarily on web sites outside the United States between 2008 and 2011, when the image was altered significantly to give the mummy a more "extraterrestrial" appearance.  altered Unfortunately, the doctored photograph proved far more popular than its legitimate counterpart. Due to the age of the original photographs, much of what was published about that particular mummy had long disappeared from news web sites, and few unaltered iterations of the original now populate search results.  Some social media clues remain, however: popular unaltered  A bit more digging reveals that the mummy was covered in the news in 2007, after the Saint Louis Science Center (SLSC) got hold of a specimen that was originally acquired by a dentist back in the 1900s: 2007 specimen Washington University scientist Charles F. Hildebolt got an intriguing phone call. A mummy had turned up in the storage facility of the Saint Louis Science Center (SLSC), but no one knew much about it. Could he and his colleagues do some detective work to learn more? "When you hear the word 'mummy,' you think big box or large tomb," says Hildebolt, DDS, PhD, a dentist and anthropologist in the Department of Radiology. "It was a surprise when we got over there and found that this was a small child, partly unwrapped and in a little pine box. We said, 'Wow! This is really interesting.' But we didn't know exactly what we'd be able to find out." At the same time, they made a bit of scientific history. Although the record of child mummies in existence is still incomplete, they are "exceedingly rare," says Hildebolt. The extensive research they have done to understand this one may well rank, he says, "as the most extensive work ever done on a child mummy." What information they had when they began came from SLSC records. Around the turn of the last century, a dentist from Hermann MO was traveling in the Middle East when he acquired the mummy as a keepsake. Back home, a niece eventually inherited it, and she brought it out for display on Halloween. Her family donated it to the SLSC in 1985. For two decades, the small mummy remained in the SLSC storage facility until new vice president Al Wiman noticed it in 2006. "The first thing I asked was 'What do you know about it?' Well, they knew it was a boy," he says today. "'Do you know anything else?' No, they didn't. At the time, initial testing revealed only a few facts about the circumstances under which the child was born and died: With funding from the SLSC, university researchers sent another swatch of wrapping to a laboratory for radiocarbon dating; with 95 percent certainty, the results showed a close match. This baby lived sometime between 40 BC and 130 AD, at the end of the Macedonian-Egyptian period of control and the beginning of Roman rule under Caesar Augustus. "So this child could easily have been alive at the same time as Cleopatra, Marc Antony, Julius Caesar and Octavian," says Hildebolt. To trace the baby's roots, they contacted Washington University geneticist Anne M. Bowcock, PhD, who enlisted researcher Li Cao, MD, to help retrieve and analyze DNA. Targeting the mitochondrial DNA, they amplified and sequenced their samples, checking the results with Douglas C. Wallace, PhD, of the University of California-Irvine, a mitochondrial expert. Next came a major surprise: This kind of DNA, provided by the maternal side, showed that this child's mother came of European lineage  perhaps a Roman or Greek living in Egypt. So far, the researchers have not been able to amplify the child's nuclear DNA, which would show the father's lineage. Photographs of SLSC's "Child Mummy" are rife on travel web sites as well, snapped from different angles: Photographs Child Mummy travel  As is often the case with fabrications of this nature, the real story of the child mummy is more compelling than the made-up tale of the alien mummy.  real story child mummy We contacted the SLSC and confirmed that the child mummy exhibit remains a permanent fixture at that center, ruling out the possibility that it has escaped and assumed extraterrestrial form. On March 10, 2021, an image started circulated on social media that supposedly showed a statement from former U.S. President Donald Trump in which he implored American citizens to remember that the United States wouldn't have had these "beautiful" COVID-19 vaccine shots for another 5 years (a dubious claim) if it wasn't for him: This was a genuine statement from Trump.  Trump released several statements after he left office on Jan. 20, 2021. Since the former president was banned from Twitter (as well as other social media networks) for posting content that could have incited more violence after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, these statements are being released via email and are then subsequently shared on social media by reporters. Margo Martin, the lead press secretary for the office of the 45th president, confirmed to Snopes via email that this was a genuine statement released by Trump.  banned shared social media lead press secretary While this is a real statement, the claims made within it (that the United States would not have had a vaccine for 5 years if it wasn't for Trump) are dubious at best. The Trump administration attempted to speed up the development of a vaccine via Operation Warp Speed. Although the Trump administration certainly deserves some credit for aiding the development of a vaccine, some companies, such as Pfizer, developed vaccines without funding from the Trump administration. It should also be noted that companies outside of the United States managed to develop vaccines without much aid from the former president.  vaccines without funding managed to develop vaccines Austin MayorSteve Adler, who seeks a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In anApril 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to this clue fromthat nights episodeof Jeopardy: Per Rick Perry, its the blueberry in the tomato soup. Perry, the Republican former governor,often offers the blueberry characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered Austin for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running? Is all of that true about Austin? Not all: In 2017,we found Half Truean Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that theFBI advises againstusing crime data it collects to declare one city safer than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested both that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016. Seeking mayors factual backup The morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didnt have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 safest big city in Texas statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austins jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nations best place to live. Checking Austins unemployment Our search for Austins jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the citys jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017:          SOURCE:Website,Unemployment,Texas Labor Market Information, Texas Workforce Commission (search completed April 26, 2018) Austin ranked best place to live two times in a row On April 10, 2018, U.S. Newsannouncedthat for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas;Colorado Springs, Colo.,placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents to find out what qualities they consider important in a home town. The methodology, U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--plus U.S. News rankings of the countrys high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the planet,earneda score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story says: The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median. Then again, the story says, Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax, and a low state and local tax rate. Another semi-warning in the story: Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching. Though, the story says, the metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, though temperatures have been known to drop in the winter. The story also notes: Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion. But, the story says, that can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking and biking. Our ruling Adler referred to Austin as the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running. Hizzonerwas right about Austins jobless rate of late and Austin getting named the citys best place to live two years in a row though its worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the countrys 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. This said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. Stoking their long-running feud, California Gov. Jerry Brown recently jabbed at former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, saying Golden State is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. Brown made this claim in the middle of an impassioned defense of climate change science at the American Geophysical Union conference on Dec. 14, 2016, in San Francisco. Weve proved in California that the economy grows. And it grows in part because of the climate rules that weve adopted, Brown said. Perry, a climate change skeptic, was recently selected U.S. energy secretary by President-elect Trump. While Texas governor, he repeatedly visited California in an attempt to lure jobs to the Lone Star State, with the promise of less regulation and lower costs. In his speech, Brown said Perrys critiques about Californias job-killing red tape dont hold up. Now remember our new secretary of energy, he was coming to California to say: Come to Texas because we have all the jobs in Texas. Well, Rick: I got some news for you, California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas, and we have more sun than you have oil! Gov. Jerry Brown makes his claim about California growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas at about the 13:00 minute mark in the video above. With Browns reference of Perry, we took his faster than Texas claim to mean faster economic growth with a focus on jobs. We decided to zero-in on job growth rates in California and Texas, while also weighing GDP and unemployment trends in the states. Well leave the fun comparison of sunshine to oil for Brown and Perry to wrestle with another day. Our research We concede theres no definition for what a hell of a lot faster growth looks like. Still, well do our best to sort out the governors claim. Browns spokeswoman pointed us to several news articles detailing Californias recent economic improvements. Looking solely at 2015 job growth rates, Browns claim appears to hold up. In that year, California added 483,000 jobs, posting a jobs growth rate of 3 percent, based ondatawe crunched from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That pace was twice as fast as Texas 1.5 percent job growth rate. Californias rapid employment gains have slowed somewhat to about 2 percent this year through November. That may not qualify as a hell of a lot faster, but its still greater than Texas roughly 1.6 percent job growth rate so far this year. The business website Kiplinger.com forecast California would rank10th in the nationamong states for fastest job growth in 2016. It noted that Texas was not on its Top 10 list. It wasnt long ago, however, that Texas outpaced California. In 2014, Texas recorded a 3.7 percent job growth rate, ahead of Californias 2.9 percent pace. Looking to the future, Californias job gains may slow. The closely watchedUCLA Anderson Forecastpredicts jobs to grow by only 1.5 percent in the state during 2017 and just 0.8 percent in 2018. Because Brown used the phrase is growing, well judge him on the most recent figures, not future forecasts. Overall economy While the pace of job growth is important, its not the only measurement of a states economic health. And Browns claim could be interpreted as Californias overall economy, not just jobs, is growing much faster than the economy in Texas. In August, PolitiFact Texas took adeep lookat the economies of both California and Texas to evaluate a June claim by Julin Castro, the U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development, that Today, California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas. It rated the claim True, citing greater jobs, per capita income and GDP growth rates in California. It noted Texas had a lower jobless rate. Building on that fact check, we looked at the most recent economic figures for both states to see if the assessment still holds. We found that Californias GDP grew faster than Texas in the first two quarters of this year, at rates of 2 percent and most recently 2.2 percent compared with Texas 1.3 percent and its most recent quarter, a negative 0.8 percent, according toa news release in Decemberby the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It was a different story in 2015 when Texas GDP expanded by 4.8 percent (a figure that was recently revised upward) compared with Californias 3.8 percent GDP expansion. Comparingunemployment rates, Texas, at 4.6 percent in November, has consistently fared better than California, where the rate was 5.3 percent in November, and has hovered well above 5 percent this year. California had one more economic bright spot in 2015: Per capita personal income grew at twice the rate as in Texas,5.4 percentto2.6 percent, according to federal data. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. We took this to mean economic growth with a focus on the pace of job creation. Californias 3 percent job growth rate in 2015, which doubled Texas pace, definitely fits into Brown's colorful claim. But Californias rate has slowed to about 2 percent so far this year, closer to Texas 1.6 job growth rate. Other economic metrics show California faring better than Texas in several, though not all, categories: Californias GDP expanded faster than Texas GDP in the first two quarters of this year, though Texas had a faster GDP growth rate in 2015. Also, per capita income grew twice as fast in California as Texas in 2015, also backing Browns statement. Texas, however, has consistently held a lower jobless rate than California in recent years. Brown, like the states economy in recent years, is on the right track. Although California has expanded jobs and its economy faster than Texas in many cases, there are a few cases where that growth has been strong but not necessarily a hell of a lot faster. We rate Browns statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/158c502a-4b3e-463d-906f-529da13e2451 Claim:  During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.'  Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly.  As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism.  Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record.  It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans.  Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless.   Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins:  This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he  said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've  got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates  corporate tax rates  on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.  I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things  fair distribution and robust economic growth  are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated:  17 August 2008    Sources:   Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax."   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008  (P. A1).    Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks.  "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'"   The Wall Street Journal.  17 June 2008. Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has come under fire because, on her recommendation, the State Investment Commission, in 2012, put more pension money in hedge funds. Critics say the funds, which are designed to retain value or increase in value for large investors when the overall market is performing poorly, are risky and charge exorbitant rates. On Oct. 21, aftera reportcommissioned by the largest state employees union accused Raimondo of selling out Rhode Island's public workers and retirees for an opportunity to enrich herself and her hedge fund backers, Raimondo sent out a fundraising letter trying to put the investment strategy in perspective. One portion focused on Providence's pension fund, overseen by Mayor Angel Taveras, a declared candidate for governor who is expected to face Raimondo in a Democratic primary. Providence has more of its pension fund invested in hedge funds and is less transparent  and yet isnt included in the [union-financed] report because this is about attacking one individual and a comprehensive reform, she said. We wondered whether her points about hedge funds and transparency were accurate. Looking at how much each fund is investing in hedge funds, themost recent monthly numbersshow that, as of Sept. 30, Raimondo is correct on a percentage basis. The report, available on the treasurer's website, says 14.2 percent of Rhode Islands $7.8 billion retirement account is invested in hedge funds. In Providence, hedge funds on Sept. 30 made up 16.6 percent of the $241 million in Providence's retirement account,according to a city report. That's nearly two and a half percentage points higher than the states ratio. However, when Providence made part of its annual required pension contribution nine days later, that percentage dropped to about 14.3 percent, virtually identical to the state ratio. (The value of the hedge funds hadnt declined, only their percentage of the overall fund. When the city made the rest of its annual contribution, the ratio dropped to 13.2 percent, according to city spokesman David Ortiz, who noted that Taveras is trying to move away from hedge funds while Raimondo has embraced them.) So whether Raimondo is correct or not depends on when you look. Raimondo's office said her fundraising letter was based on aMay 8, 2013, blog postat WPRI.com, which reported that Providence had just under 20 percent of its pension money invested in hedge funds at a time when the state's ratio was 14.6 percent. The media report from May 2013 was the only information that we could publicly find regarding Providences investment allocation to hedge funds, said Collin Berglund, spokesman for Friends of Gina Raimondo. That has changed. After Raimondo made her comment and PolitiFact called Providence to check it on Oct. 23, the city posted more of its retirement fund data online, including the Sept. 30 numbers and an Oct. 22 tally that included the $33 million infusion of cash from the city that made hedge funds an even smaller slice of the retirement pie. Which brings us to the issue of transparency. Raimondo's office has bragged about its openness because detailed information about the investments is posted on the general treasurer's website. Raimondo has also, for the first time, included information on the hidden fees that some funds charge the state and most states don't report. City spokesman Ortiz responded in an Oct. 24 email: Reports prepared by our pension investment advisers have always been provided to the media without any redaction, and are now publicly available on the citys open data portal:https://data.providenceri.gov/. He said that Raimondo has denied public records requests and redacted key data regarding fees and performance for some investments. He did not respond when we pressed him for specifics. But earlier this year, Raimondos office denied a request by The Providence Journal to see certain details that each hedge fund gives to the state, saying it is bound by contractual confidentiality agreements.An Aug. 4, 2013 Journal storyreported that much of that information was redacted from documents Raimondos office provided to the newspaper. When we asked Raimondo's office about Ortiz's allegations about disclosure, spokeswoman Joy Fox said in the few instances where information has been withheld, it had to be kept secret to avoid violating contracts. We found some hedge fund report information on the Providence website that seemed to offer more detail than what Raimondo offered, but it's not clear whether the report was available before PolitiFact began inquiring about Raimondo's claim about openness. Our ruling Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo said Providence has more of its pension fund invested in hedge funds than the state does and is less transparent about it. Based on the Sept. 30 financial statements, the first part of Raimondo's statement would have been true. The city had 16.6 percent of its pension money in hedge funds, compared with the states 14.2 percent. That's no longer true because Providence subsequently made its annual pension payment, increasing the proportion of non-hedge fund investments. But that information was not public at the time Raimondo made her statement. On the issue of disclosure, the city has released pension information when asked, but theres much more pension information -- particularly historical information -- widely available to the public on the states website. Raimondos statement was accurate on Sept. 30, but recognizing that a key element had changed by the time she made it on Oct. 21, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)