Did a State Democratic Party Logo Once Feature the Slogan 'White Supremacy'?
Amid political controversy engendered by the protests of National Football League athletes who refused to stand during pre-game renditions of the national anthem in late September 2017 to display solidarity with black victims of police violence a gesture supported by many Democrats but condemned by President Trump and conservative Republicans a meme was circulated via social media making the point that the Democratic Party was not always a standard bearer for racial equality. protests This is an example from Twitter:   The centerpiece of the post is a reproduction of an illustration typically captioned "Democratic Party Logo until 1966," featuring a drawing of a crowing rooster and the slogan "White Supremacy, For the Right." And although the description is somewhat misleading ("White Supremacy" was never a slogan of the national Democratic Party, for example, nor have we seen evidence that the image was "purged from the Internet"), this was, in fact, the emblem of the Alabama Democratic Party between 1904 and 1966. 1904 First, regarding the rooster, it's often mistakenly assumed that the donkey was always the symbol of the Democratic Party, when in fact the party began using a crowing rooster as its mascot around 1840. This version of how that came to pass is from a biographical sketch of Indianapolis lawyer and Whig politician Thomas D. Walpole published in 1876: sketch In 1840 [Tom Walpole] was an ardent and enthusiastic Whig, and rendered great service to the Whig party, and contributed largely to the success of General Harrison. It was during this canvass that Tom gave to the Democratic party their emblem, which they have claimed ever since, the chicken cock, or rooster. George Patterson, then editing the Democratic paper, wrote, just before the August election of that year, to Joseph Chapman, of Greenfield, that the Democratic party would be beat, and that there was no hope, but, said he, "Crow, Chapman, crow." By some means Tom got possession of the letter, and exposed it. A year or two subsequent to this circumstance Messrs. George and Page Chapman became proprietors and editors of the Democratic paper and placed a rooster at the head of their paper, and from this circumstance it was generally supposed that they were the persons to whom the letter was addressed and the original crowers; but such is not the case. It is to Tom Walpole the Democratic party is indebted for the emblem of the rooster. Other sources grant full credit to Joseph Chapman for dreaming up the rooster symbol, but in any case, although it was never officially adopted as the emblem of the national Democratic Party, it very quickly became an unofficial one and remained so until cartoonist Thomas Nast's depictions of Republicans as elephants and Democrats as donkeys captured the public imagination in the late nineteenth century (to date, the national Democratic Party has never officially adopted any animal as its symbol). The forerunner of today's Democratic Party was born during the 1820s and '30s, coalescing around the populist presidential candidacy of national war hero and southern slaveholder Andrew Jackson. Although egalitarianism and freedom of the individual were much-touted ideals of "Jacksonian Democracy," in reality the Democratic Party of the time took white supremacy for granted and had little to no interest in defending the freedom and equality of African Americans, native Americans, or any other racial minorities. Still, the party was conflicted over the expansion of slavery and split in two during the 1860 elections, with the Northern Democrats opposing expansion and Southern Democrats favoring it. The Democratic Party remained dominant in the South after the Civil War, opposing Reconstruction and enacting laws to suppress black voters and enforce racial segregation. The Alabama Democratic Party went further than most, calling for the adoption of a new state constitution in 1901 that explicitly disenfranchised black voters, and celebrating its success in that effort by officially embracing the slogan "White Supremacy" three years later. TheMonroe Journal of Claiborne, Alabama reported on 2 June 1904: calling The state executive committee adopted the game cock as the Democratic Party emblem. Above the bird will be the words "White Supremacy" and below "For the Right." To be sure, there were a few Alabama Democrats who objected to the emblem after its adoption, though not for the reasons you might suppose. For example, Democratic Congressman J. Thomas Heflin was perfectly fine with the racist slogan, but felt the image of the rooster was undignified: I think that the emblem is not what it should be, and that it fails to impress the people with the dignity of the Democratic Party. To my mind it would have been much better to have had, instead of the rooster, the picture of a handsome young woman, holding the Constitution in a scroll aloft, with the words "Here We Rest" prominently shown upon it. I see no objection to the use of the two expressions already adopted, but do not think that the design is worth of a great party like ours. Dignified or not, that emblem would appear at the top of every Alabama state ballot for many decades to come, as noted, for example, in this November 1940 report by theChicago Tribune: In Alabama the disfranchisement of the Negro is proclaimed proudly by the Democratic party on the official ballot in all elections. At the head of the Democratic column on the ballot appears the emblem of the rooster. Arched over the rooster's head are the words: "White Supremacy." Below the rooster appear the words: "For the Right." By the early 1950s, however, the Alabama Democratic Party's proud embrace of white supremacy was becoming a liability for the national party. In 1952, New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, a Republican campaigning on behalf of Dwight D. Eisenhower, gave a speech laying the racist logo at the doorstep of Eisenhower's Democratic rival Adlai Stevenson (from the Dixon Evening Telegraph,9 October 1952): Gov. Thomas E. Dewer says the "White Supremacy" slogan on Alabama's Democratic ballot convicts that party's top nominees of "rankest hypocrisy." In a state-wide radio and television address Wednesday night, the New York governor ripped into Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson and Sen. John J. Sparkman of Alabama after holding up to TV viewers the official Alabama ballot showing: A rooster emblem, with the words "White Supremacy" above it and the words "For the Right" below it. "There it is," Dewey said, "the rooster and the banner of White supremacy Ku Klux Klan Jim Crow banner  flying over the election for Stevenson and Sparkman in this ear 1952." Though the Democrats lost that election, the emblem would remain intact on the ballot for another 14 years, until leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party finally modified the slogan in 1966 for purely pragmatic reasons: The party needed "Negro" voters. The Montgomery Advertiser reported: In an unexpected display of strength, the Loyalist faction of the State Democratic Executive Committee removed the "white supremacy" label from the party emblem Saturday in a move admittedly designed to keep Negro voters in the fold. ... The only change made in the emblem was removing the words "white supremacy" and substituting "Democrats." The rooster was untouched. Charles W. McKay of Talladega offered the resolution changing the emblem. McKay gained fame a number of years ago when he authored the "Nullification Resolution" in the Legislature which sought to declare null and void the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision. McKay made it clear that the emblem change was necessary if the Democrats were to attract Negro votes this year. "We can't afford to spend a lot of money nominating candidates this spring and then take a stick and run off 150,000 to 175,000 voters who might vote Democratic," he declared. Ironically (though the irony may well have been lost on McKay), it was only because the voter suppression measures instituted decades earlier by his own state party had been knocked down by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that many of those potential new black voters would even have access to the polls. As to the Alabama Democratic Party rooster, it, too, was finally sent into forced retirement, but not till 1996 (30 years later), when it was replaced with the image of a donkey. Bridges, Edwin C. Alabama: The Making of an American State. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2016. ISBN 9780817358761, p. 159. Cotter, Patrick R. "Democratic Party in Alabama." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 3 May 2017. Frederick, Jeff. Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George Wallace. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. ISBN 9780817315740, p. 29. Henning, Arthur Sears Henning. "Alabama Ballot Boasts of White Supremacy." Chicago Tribune. 29 November 1940. Ingram, Bob. "Loyalist Faction Wins; 'White Supremacy' Goes." The Montgomery Advertiser. 23 January 1966. Nowland, John H.B. Sketches of Prominent Citizens of 1876. Indianapolis: Tilford & Carlon, 1877, p. 106. Seidman, Steven. "The Rooster as the Symbol of the U.S. Democratic Party." Ithaca College. 12 June 2010. Warren, Sarah A. "Constitutional Convention of 1901." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 15 October 2014. Associated Press. "Democrats Make Donkey Symbol." The Montgomery Advertiser. 27 April 1996. Dixon Evening Telegraph. "Demos Run Under 'White Supremacy Tag in South." 9 October 1952. The Gaffney Ledger. "Action State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama." 25 May 1904.
In April 2020, as the global death toll from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic surpassed 100,000, social media users started to post messages about how Ivanka Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter and newly appointed member of the White House's council to reopen America, had a trademark in China on coffins: pandemic messages   While some shared this claim as if it were a "fun fact," others made a more direct connection between her company's trademark on coffins in China to the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic:   According to multiple news reports, the first daughter's company, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was truly awarded a trademark on coffins in China. However, this occurred in 2018, long before COVID-19 started to spread around the globe.  The Associated Press reported in May 2018 that her company had been awarded 13 trademarks in China over three months. These trademarks covered a variety of products, including baby blankets, coffee, perfume, and coffins: reported 13 trademarks Ivanka Trumps brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found. On Sunday, China granted the first daughters company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trumps company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period. Taken together, the trademarks could allow her brand to market a lifetimes worth of products in China, from baby blankets to coffins, and a host of things in between, including perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, books, coffee, chocolate and honey. Ivanka Trump stepped back from management of her brand and placed its assets in a family-run trust, but she continues to profit from the business. When users in April 2020 re-shared news stories about her trademarks amidst the global pandemic, many insinuated she would be capitalizing off of people's deaths, and that people in China would be required to purchase a Trump coffin. But that's not the case.  This confusion appears to be based on the conflation of the terms "trademark" and "patent." With a trademark, Ivanka Trump has the opportunity to sell products (in this case a coffin) bearing her company's name. A trademark does not give Trump's company any sort of exclusive deal to sell coffins in China. Other companies can still manufacturer and sell coffins just as always. patent Australia's ABC News noted that companies sometimes file for a trademark as part of a "defensive" strategy to prevent competitors from squatting on a brand's name: ABC News Companies register for trademarks for a variety of reasons. They can be a sign of corporate ambition, but in many countries, like China, where trademark squatting is rampant, companies also file defensively, to block copycats from grabbing legal rights to a brand's name. This appears to be the strategy of Ivanka Trump's company. Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a May 2018 statement that these trademarks were obtained during the "normal course of business." Klem also noted that trademark infringement was rampant, and that the company was trying to protect its brand: statement The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant. ... We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark. It should also be noted that, as Snopes reported in 2019, Ivanka Trump was not running the company at the time that these trademarks were obtained. Ivanka stepped down from day-to-day operations in 2017 and announced that the company was closing down the following year: reported Ivanka Trump said in a statement announcing the closure:  statement "After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington. So making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners." While Ivanka Trump may have not had a hand in obtaining these trademarks, the government transparency advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cautioned that these trademarks could still represent a conflict of interest in the future.  CREW wrote: wrote Ivanka announced the immediate closure of her brand in July 2018, citing her official government responsibilities in Washington, DC. However, her trademarks remain a potential conflict of interest as she continues to work on policy in the White House and meet with foreign leaders. To sum up: Ivanka Trump's company obtained several trademarks in China in 2018 that covered a wide range of products, including baby blankets, perfume, and coffins. This trademark gives the company the opportunity to sell Trump-branded coffins and prevents other companies from using the Trump brand to sell their own coffins. As of this writing, we've seen no reporting that Ivanka Trump's company (which she no longer operates) plans to manufacture or sell coffins in China.  Higgins, Tucker.  "Ivanka Trumps Chinese Trademarks Raise Questions About Potential Conflicts of Interest."
  CNBC  29 May 2018. Associated Press.  "Ivanka Trump Wins 13 New Trademarks From China in 3 Months."
  28 May 2018. ABC News.  "Ivanka Trump's Chinese Trademarks on Products From Baby Blankets to Coffins Raise Corruption Concerns."
  28 May 2018. Palma, Bethania.  "Did China Grant a Trademark to Ivanka Trump for Voting Machines?"
 Snopes.com.  9 October 2019. Zhang, Caroline.  "Ivanka Trum's Business Wins Approval for 16 New Chinese Trademarks Despite Shutting Down."
  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  5 November 2018. Claim:  Letter chides Senator Barbara Boxer for asking a general to address her as "Senator." CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!! Babs: You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong.. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered [Remember Mary Jo]), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two? Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather  chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions. Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation. What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it. Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"? Have a fine day. Cheers! Jim HillSouth Hill, WA 98374 Origins:  In June 2009, Brigadier General Michael Walsh testified before the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer of California.  As General Walsh was answering  questions about New Orleans' levee system, Senator Boxer interrupted him mid-sentence to request that he address her as "Senator" rather than "Ma'am": Environment and Public Works Committee  This exchange touched off a partisan political brouhaha, with one side maintaining that the incident was merely an appropriately polite interjection by Senator Boxer requesting that she be addressed as she preferred, and the other side maintaining that it was a rude and disrespectful mid-sentence interruption of a  general who had already been exhibiting due deference by addressing her as "ma'am." The above-reproduced letter, which takes the latter tack and chides Senator Boxer for her action, has been circulated in versions attributing it to several different names, with the most common variant concluding with the mailing address of one Jim Hill of South Hill, Washington.   Mr. Hill told us that he did indeed write and send it: With respect to the letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, I am in fact the author of it.   The only thing I received [from Senator Boxer's office in response to my correspondence] was a "form letter," or at least it seemed to be, that stated that since it was determined that I was not a constituent of the Senator's, that the letter would not be shown to her.  I felt that to be a little bit blunt, but not all together out of place.  I thought no more of it until about two weeks later when I received an email from a friend and fellow airline pilot asking me if I had indeed written the original letter. He attached the email which he had received that contained my letter.  I have received hundreds of letters addressed per the copy of the letter circulating over the internet.  It would seem that someone within the Senator's office either forwarded a copy of the typed letter to a friend, or posted it on the internet.  The letters that I have received have come from all over the country, and from persons from all walks of life.  I have only received one negative letter to date. Last updated:  29 December 2009 Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. Claim:  The viral quote "If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die" was written by Canadian rapper Drake.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015]  If a Writer Falls in Love with you, You shall Never Die #ReadSomewhere #ReadSomewhere  Gaonka6hhora (@Gaonka6hhora) February 9, 2015 February 9, 2015  Origins:  In January 2015, Canadian musician Aubrey Drake Graham, better known in his persona as the rapper Drake,incorrectly attributed a viral Tumblr quote about a writer's falling in love to Mustafa the Poet when he posted the meme to his Instagram page:   @mustafathepoet @mustafathepoet A photo posted by champagnepapi (@champagnepapi) on Jan 14, 2015 at 9:11pm PST  Hundreds of thousands of viewers liked the photo, and many who saw the above-displayed Instagram post believed it was written by Drake, while others noticed the musician's attempt to credit the original author and praised Mustafa the Poet for penning the viral phrase.  But the phrase "If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die" was written neither by Drake nor by Mustafa the Poet. The true author is Mik Everett, who first published the quote back in 2011 on her blog:  Mik Everett blog Lots of things might happen. That's the thing about writers. They're unpredictable. They might bring you eggs in bed for breakfast, or they might all but ignore you for days. They might bring you eggs in bed at three in the morning. Or they might wake you up for sex at three in the morning. Or make love at four in the afternoon. They might not sleep at all. Or they might sleep right through the alarm and forget to get you up for work. Or call you home from work to kill a spider. Or refuse to speak to you after finding out you've never seen To Kill a Mockingbird. Or spend the last of the rent money on five kinds of soap. Or sell your textbooks for cash halfway through the semester. Or leave you love notes in your pockets. Or wash you pants with Post-It notes in the pockets so your laundry comes out covered in bits of wet paper. They might cry if the Post-It notes are unread all over your pants. Its an unpredictable life. But what happens if a writer falls in love with you? This is a little more predictable. You will find your hemp necklace with the glass mushroom pendant around the neck of someone at a bus stop in a short story. Your favorite shoes will mysteriously disappear, and show up in a poem. The watch you always wear, the watch you own but never wear, the fact that you've never worn a watch: they suddenly belong to characters you've never known. And yet they're you. They're not you; they're someone else entirely, but they toss their hair like you. They use the same colloquialisms as you. They scratch their nose when they lie like you. Sometimes they will be narrators; sometimes protagonists, sometimes villains. Sometimes they will be nobodies, an unimportant, static prop. This might amuse you at first. Or confuse you. You might be bewildered when books turn into mirrors. You might try to see yourself how your beloved writer sees you when you read a poem about someone who has your middle name or prose about someone who has never seen To Kill a Mockingbird. These poems and novels and short stories, they will scatter into the wind. You will wonder if you're wandering through the pages of some story you've never even read. There's no way to know. And no way to erase it. Even if you leave, a part of you will always be left behind.  If a writer falls in love with you, you can never die. Vibe NY Mag On 23 January 2015, Mik Everett took to her website to express her frustrations with being a virally famous, yet unknown, author. A portion of Everett's article is republished below: website Last Monday, I woke up to something weirder than I could possibly imagine. I woke up to find that Drake had posted a quote by me on Instagram. And that he'd credited the quote to another author. There is no Thought Catalogue article entitled What to Do If a Famous Rapper Steals Your Quote. There is no Buzzfeed article on how to cope with the rabid fans of a rockstar insisting that you've stolen from him. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't a very common problem to have. Sure, I've heard of academic and artistic plagiarism before, usually involving two high-profile, Entertainment News celebrities. But I'm not a celebrity. I've sold, like, two hundred copies of each of my books. I live well below the poverty line. I'm a regular person who said something kinda catchy once on the internet, and lots of people liked it. And Drake liked it. I am so disconnected from that quote and the people who use it; I am simultaneously on the outside looking in on the very idea of fame, and in the very middle of it. To be clear here, nobody broke any laws. Drake did not take credit for the quote. He attempted to cite the quote, like we all learned how to do in middle school. He just cited the wrong poet. That poet (he goes by Mustafa) did give me appropriate credit for the quote, eventually. After Drake had re-posted the quote and attributed it to Mustafa, I think it kinda blew up in his face and people started hounding him to give me credit. And he did add my name in. But on the internet, that doesn't matter. Everyone else is still attributing the quote to Mustafa. And there's no way to fix it. Just try messaging Drake on Instagram. On one hand, it's not that big of a deal. The quote has been used several million times on the internet, and is rarely credited to me. On the other hand, I would really, really, really like to make a living as an author. And in our day and age, there are no more camera-shy Thomas Pynchons. To be a financially successful author is inextricable from being a famous author. We hope this helps Mik Everett garner some of the recognition she deserves.   Last updated:  10 February 2015 In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its 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." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. In December 2023, multiple display advertisements were shown to online users on YouTube and other websites that claimed, "America's Most Famous Burger Brand Is Now Chinese Owned." In this story, we've detailed how these ads were both false and misleading. We've also provided information about some of the most successful U.S. burger brands. One ad that we reviewed showed a photo of a large cheeseburger in what appeared to be the dining room of a restaurant. We performed a reverse-image search and traced the picture to a page on Pinterest. A link on that Pinterest page led to another page on friesandsalt.tumblr.com, which revealed that the photo was captured in a Five Guys restaurant. Five Guys is headquartered in Virginia and is not owned by a company in China. reverse-image search page friesandsalt.tumblr.com headquartered  Additional ads that displayed similar captions showed other pictures of burgers. One of those images may have been a stock photo or was possibly captured in Cyprus, according to a user's post on TripAdvisor.com. TripAdvisor.com  All of these ads led to a lengthy article that was hosted on either Investing.com or StreetInsider.com. The story's headline read, "American Companies That Are No Longer American." Investing.com StreetInsider.com The article was massive in its text. It listed nearly 200 businesses and had close to 400 paragraphs. Nowhere in the story did the author mention anything about any American burger brands being bought by a company in China. The ads with the photos of burgers were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through nearly 200 slides for nothing. We hope that our brief article saved readers some time. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage Naming America's "most famous" burger brand might be a subjective choice. However, if sales figures were considered, McDonald's was at the top of the food chain, according to QSR Magazine, Restaurant Business and Yahoo Finance. The company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, not China. QSR Magazine Restaurant Business Yahoo Finance headquartered The same three sources that provided sales figures for burger chains also reported that McDonald's was followed by Wendy's and Burger King. Wendy's is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, while Burger King is owned by the Canadian company Restaurant Brands International. headquartered Restaurant Brands International Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Ahmed, Ali. 20 Best Burger Chains in the US. Yahoo Finance, 5 Aug. 2023, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-best-burger-chains-us-214700611.html. Campus Gardens at Wendys Headquarters in Dublin, OH. Wendys, https://www.wendys.com/csr-what-we-value/footprint/corporate-office-initiatives/gardens. Careers at the McDonalds Global Headquarters. McDonalds Careers, https://careers.mcdonalds.com/mhq-and-field-offices. El Clasico Sports Pub. TripAdvisor.com, Apr. 2019, https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190383-d6651868-i275560000-El_Clasico_Sports_Pub-Nicosia_Nicosia_District.html. Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Five Guys Bacon Triple Cheeseburger. Pinterest, www.pinterest.com/pin/513973376204398170/. ---. friesandsalt.tumblr.com, https://friesandsalt.tumblr.com/post/136992557459/photoset_iframe/friesandsalt/tumblr_nragqdSeHE1qhffuc/0/false. Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. Our Locations. Restaurant Brands International, https://careers.rbi.com/global/en/locations. Ranked: The Top Fast-Food Burger Chains in America. QSR Magazine, 1 Aug. 2023, https://www.qsrmagazine.com/operations/fast-food/ranked-the-top-fast-food-burger-chains-in-america/. Restaurant Business Staff. The Largest Burger Chains in the U.S. Restaurant Business, 13 May 2020, https://restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/largest-burger-chains-us. As congressional Democrats and Republicans sit down for high-stakes budget talks,the rhetoric has flown furiously to familiar territory.Republicans want cuts and reforms to entitlement programs, while Democrats insist that revenue must be on the table, too. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., made the case for the latter inan interview on MSNBCon Nov. 12, 2013. This country has never been richer, if you look at per capita GDP, she said. It doesn't feel that way when you hear about austerity and we have to cut this and we have to cut that. It's because the income inequality is greater than it has ever been. We wondered if she was correct. The numbers dont lie Schakowskys office sent us figures from theEconomic Research Serviceof the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to those numbers, the GDP per capita, when adjusted for inflation, hit $45,633 this year, which surpassed the previous high of $45,360, which was set in 2007 prior to the most recent recession. It was barely higher, but higher all the same. (The government defines the GDP  gross domestic product  as the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property within the country.) We were curious how the data was calculated, so we contacted Mathew Shane, an economist with the USDA who put the figures together. He told us that the 2013 number was partially based on a projection, since the year is not yet completed. But if that projection is borne out, he said,then GDP per capita will be at its highest level ever. Its close, Shane said. We hit a peak in 2007 when the crisis hit. Theres been no income growth in real terms since 2007. The difference between (2007 and 2013) is a very modest difference. We, essentially, finally regained what we were in 2007. I guess we could say were projected to be slightly better than we were in 2007. If I guess doesnt sound definitive enough, we also sought out another source:the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the government agency that calculates the nations GDP. The bureaus analysis also backs up Shanes findings. By the second quarter of this year, GDP per capita had surpassed 2007 levels. The third quarter of 2013 is the highest on record, said Thomas Dail, spokesman for the bureau. Finally, GDP per capita, even when adjusted for inflation, hasgone up and upfor more than a century. In other words, Schakowsky could have said what she said at virtually any given point during the last 150 years and had a pretty good chance of being right. Our ruling Schakowsky said, This country has never been richer, if you look at per capita GDP. We found that GDP has trended upward throughout much of America's history and the current level is only slightly higher than pre-recession levels. But the numbers show Schakowsky is right. We rate her comments True. On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections: Newly Press meme   A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates:    However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member: Roll Call A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the  midterm elections. Targeting [people of color, young people, and women] is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in the previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and dont build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative  which the coalition is calling Win Justice  are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization: Planned Parenthood Votes  Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities.   According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors: prohibited Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." involved stipulates The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." Super PAC In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law.  Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage is such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections. Bois, Paul.  "Planned Parenthood Spending $30 Million on Midterm Elections."
  Daily Wire.  18 April 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to Target 8 States, Spend $20 Million as Part of Midterm Battle Plan."
  CNN.  1 March 2018. Connolly, Griffin.  "Planned Parenthood, Other Groups to Spend $30 Million on Midterms."
  Roll Call.  16 April 2018. Federal Election Commission.  "Types of Nonconnected PACs."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "Social Welfare Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Ballotpedia.  "Planned Parenthood Votes."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood.  "nformation For Attorneys And Other Professionals."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  "Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Launch 2018 Electoral Program."
  1 March 2018. In a Nov. 13, 2013, campaignpress release, Debra Medina pledged that as Texas state comptroller she would resist growth in government spending, saying, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans. An earlier version of the claim sent out viaemailsaid simply greater debt burden, not local; the campaign posted an updated release online. We looked at state debt in a July 24, 2011, fact-check on Gov. Rick Perry, rating asMostly Truehis claim that Texas had the fourth-lowest debt per capita of any state in the nation, and we are the lowest of any of the big states. How does debt shake out at the local level? Medina, a tea-party favorite from Wharton, got 19 percent of the vote in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary against Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Medina campaign told us via email that her Texas-New York comparison was based on a Sept. 26, 2012,report, Your Money and Local Debt, issued by the current state comptroller, Susan Combs. In 2009, Texas had $7,983 in local debt per capita, the report said, placing Texas second among the 10 most populous states. New York was first with $8,744 in local debt per capita; California was third with $6,469 per capita. Texas comptrollerreport, Your Money and Local Debt, Sept. 26, 2012, based on 2009 data: The report relied on 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data, which Combs spokesman R.J. DeSilva told us via email was drawn from the December 2011 annual report of the Texas Bond Review Board. That agency oversees the issuance of state bonds used to fund activities as varied as making housing loans to veterans and helping local governments finance water projects. State and local debt are defined in the bureaus July 2013summaryof 2011 data as all interest-bearing short-term credit obligations and all long-term obligations incurred in the name of the government and all its dependent agencies, whether used for public or private purposes. U.S. states divide local and state responsibilities in different ways. Texas spends little at the state level; local costs may be borne by hospital districts, school districts and the like in addition to city and county governments. The Census and Board both presented local debt estimates alongside state debt. We next looked for comparisons using more recent data and all 50 states. The Bond Review Board offers its own annual estimate of local debt in Texas. In the most recentreportthat was available when Medinas release was sent out, published in December 2012, the agency said Texas local debt per capita was $7,507 in the fiscal year that ran through August 2011. Board spokesman Robert Latsha told us by phone that, though he wasnt certain exactly what the Census included in its figures, its likely the largest difference between the Census and board estimates comes from debt set up by quasi-governmental agencies such as local housing finance corporations or economic development corporations. Only debt from bonds and shorter-term securities issued by local governments is reported to the board, Latsha said. He said the board didnt calculate comparisons with all 50 states. Census Bureau spokesman Joseph Dalaker told us by phone that the bureau didnt either, but he helped us find data comparable to what the board probably used when comparing the 10 biggest states. Using those Census estimates oflocal debtandstate population-- from the most recent data sets available when Medina spoke in November 2013 -- we found Texas was third among all 50 states and, again, second among the 10 most populous. Highest local debt per capita among all 50 states: Sources: U.S. Census Bureaupopulation estimates, July 12, 2012, andlocal debt estimates, Dec. 6, 2012 In the boardsDecember 2013 report, which came out after Medina made her statement, the state board updated local debt per capita in fiscal 2012 to $7,514 by its own estimation and $8,431 according to Census data, keeping Texas in second place among the 10 most populous states. Medinas claim referred to the debt burden falling on citizens. But state residents might not be directly on the hook for the whole amount. Dalaker told us, You really have to tease out whos paying. For example, taxes on tourists can help pay for projects, he said. Moodys Investors Service spokesman David Jacobson told us by phone, Whats more important is your ability to pay back that debt and how it is structured. Many Texas entities have good credit, he said. Our ruling Medina said, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans, but without mentioning that her comparison was based on the 10 most-populated states. Texas is second among the big states and third among all 50 in recent estimates. We rate her statement as True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Austins typically soft-spoken mayor recently popped a big-as-Texas boast. Theres a reason Austin is number one in Texas in startups and venture capital and patents, Steve Adler said. Adler, speaking outside City Hall, went on: Theres a reason that tech and transportation companies come to Austin to roll out their new initiatives. And thats because Austin is where good ideas become real. Claiming that Austin is anti-innovation has no basis in fact. Hear hear! Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services. Startups Adler's office didn't immediately offer his backup. Meantime, our online search for information on startups led us to a June 2015 report from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation stating that in the last year, the Austin metropolitan area ranked No. 1 nationally for the areas pace launching startups, which the foundation defined as firms less than one-year old employing at least one person besides the owner. Asked what last year means in the report, foundation researcher E.J. Reedy advised by phone the conclusion tied to data from 2012 and 2014. According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio. Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reedy agreed by phone that among the big Texas cities, the Austin area had the greatest concentration of startups. But generally, Reedy indicated, counts of startups can vary, partly because theres no single accepted definition of startups, which inherently come and go at a rapid pace. The government has official measures, Reedy added, but each one captures an aspect -- for instance new employer businesses or newly self-employed individuals. Also, Reedy said, observers differ over what merits counting. Some stress large firms that employ many, he said, others urge a fix on technology firms and others say that any count should recognize small businesses (including one-person endeavors) that grow by an employee or two a year. A foundation chart presenting Austins startup density since the late 1970s indicates the area has had peppier times--including in 2008 (201.7 startups per 100,000 residents), 2006 (214.9), 1999 (217.9) and, the charts high point, 1981 (499.5), which was up a huge measure from 1980 (31.4):        SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016) Venture capital Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association,  said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million. The Austin-connected investments added up to the largest annual dollar figure for Austin since 2001, the newspaper said, when 127 companies received $1.14 billion. By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said. Nationally in 2015, theStatesmanstory said, venture capital investments rose to $58.8 billion, up 22 percent from the year before. Silicon Valley, as usual, took in the most money, with the San Jose area receiving $27.3 billion in 1,333 deals, the story said. Patents Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote. Greenberg elaborated: Austins culture of innovation may be boosted by well-known tech credentials like the South by Southwest (SXSW) Web startup and music festival held annually in March, as well as the nearby headquarters of hardware industry giants Dell and Freescale Semiconductor. But they also have two secret weapons in the innovation race: the University of Texass Cockrell School of Engineering, and IBMs Austin research lab. IBM produces more patents than any other company in the world, and for the last seven years Austin has produced more of those patents than any other IBM office. In total the lab produced 880 patents in 2009. Thats just 30 less than all of Cisco, and 300 more than Sun Microsystems, Boeing, AT&T or Toyota. We were unable to confirm or duplicate Greenbergs Austin conclusion. To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area. However, the regions raw counts were close, according to the agency, while the Austin area was responsible for more patents than any other Texas area from 2009, 2010 and 2011 through 2013, by our reckoning. Snapshot: The Austin area was responsible for 12,387 patents from 2009 through 2013, according to the office, with the Dallas area accounting for 11,546 patents -- which we took to mean that the less populous Austin area ran well ahead of the Dallas area in patents per 1,000 residents. Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO. The authors wrote: From 1980 to 2011, a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th. Not only did Austin surge in total patents, it lately achieved a high ranking in per-capita patents. From 2007 through 2011, a chart in the report indicates, the Austin metro area had 1,503 patents per million residents, tops in Texas and placing the area fourth nationally among high-patent areas behind San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (5,066 patents per million residents); Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York (1,829); and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (1,638). In Texas, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro area had 379 patents per million residents and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area had 310 per million, according to Brookings. Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294). An excerpt:             SOURCE:Chart ranking 100 U.S. Core Based Statistical Areas in tech patents invented per 1,000 population, 2008-2012 (received by email from Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, May 5, 2016) Regardless of those results, Muro and a Brookings colleague, Nick Marchio, suggested we hew to the U.S. patent office counts as the best general way of assessing the mayors claim. Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents. Our ruling Adler said: Austin is number one in Texas in startups, venture capital and patents. Houston has been running ahead in international technology patents, it looks to us, but Austin lately leads the state in overall patents, startups and venture capital. We rate the claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.