Public Broadcasting Cuts (2005)
Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005.
Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). Claim:  Paul Allen of Microsoft wrote a letter to a Santa Clarita newspaper in defense of Mormons. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Comment: I recieved the email below and want to know if it is truely from Paul Allen or not: Paul Allen's Editorial on the "Mormons". Paul Allen is the owner of the Seattle Seahawks.  He is also theowner of the Portland Trail Blazers NBA basketball team and is aco-partner with Bill Gates in Microsoft.  His letter to the editor waspublished  in the Santa Clarita, California newspaper. Editor:  I have heard and seen enough! I have lived in the West all my life. I have worked around them. They have worked for me and I for them. When I was young, I dated their daughters. When I got married they came to my wedding. Now that I have daughters of my own, some of their boys have dated my daughters. I would be privileged if one of them were to be my son-in-law. I'm talking about the Mormons. They are some of the most honest, hard-working people I have ever known. They are spiritual, probably more than most other so-called religious people I have encountered. They study the Bible and teach from it as much as any Christian church ever has. They serve their religion without pay in every conceivable capacity. None of their leaders, teachers, counselors, Bishops or music directors receive one dime for the hours of labor they put in. The Mormons have a non-paid ministry  a fact not generally known. I have heard many times from the pulpits of others how evil and non-Christian they are and that they will not go to heaven. I decided recently to attend one of their services near my home to see for myself. What a surprise! What I heard and saw was just the opposite from what the religious ministers of the day were telling me. I found a very simple service with no fanfare. I found a people with a great sense of humor and a well-balanced spiritual side. There was no loud music. Just a simple service, with the members themselves giving the several short sermons. They urge their youth to be morally clean and live a good life. They teach the gospel of Christ, as they understand it. The name of their church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Does that sound like a non-Christian church to you? I asked them many questions about what they teach and why. I got answers that in most cases were from the New Testament. Their ideas and doctrines did not seem too far fetched for my understanding. When I read their "Book of Mormon" I was also very surprised to find just the opposite from what I had been told I would find. Then I went to another church's pastor to ask him some of the same questions about doctrine. To my surprise, when he found out that I was in some way investigating the Mormons, he became hostile. He referred to them as a non-Christian cult. I received what sounded to me like evil propaganda against those people. He stated bluntly that they were not Christian and that they did not fit into the Christian mold. He also told me that they don't really believe the Bible. He gave me a pile of anti-Mormon literature. He began to rant that the Mormons were not telling me the truth about what they stand for. He didn't want to hear anything good about them. At first I was surprised and then again, I wasn't. I began to wonder. I have never known of a cult that supports the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Boy Scouts, over a third of all the Boy Scout troops in the United States are Mormon. What cult do you know of that has a welfare system second to none in this country? They have farms, canneries and cattle ranches to help take care of the unfortunate ones who might be down and out and in need of a little help. The Mormon Church has donated millions to welfare causes around the world without a word of credit. They have donated thousands to help re-build Baptist churches that were burned a few years ago. They have donated tons of medical supplies to countries ravaged by earthquakes. You never see them on TV begging for money. What cult do you know of that instills in its members to obey the law, pay their taxes, serve in the military if asked and be a good Christian by living high moral standards? Did you know that hundreds of thousands of Mormon youth get up before high school starts in the morning to attend a religious training class? They have basketball and softball leagues and supervised youth dances every month. They are recruited by the FBI, the State Department and every police department in the country because they are trustworthy. They are taught not to drink nor take drugs. They are in the Secret Service  those who protect the President. They serve in high leadership positions from both parties in Congress and in the U.S. Senate, and have been governors of several states other than Utah. They serve with distinction and honor. If you have Mormons living near, you will probably find them to be your best friends and neighbors. They are Christians who try to live what they preach. They are not perfect and they are the first to admit this. I have known some of them who could not live their religion, just like many of us. The rhetoric which is spread around against them is nothing more than evil propaganda founded in untruths. (Others) had successfully demonized them to the point that the general public has no idea what they actually believe and teach. If you really want to know the truth, go see for yourself. You, also, will be surprised. When I first moved here some 25 years ago there were five Mormon wards in Santa Clarita. Now there are 15. They must be doing something right.  Paul AllenSanta Clarita, Calif. Origins:  The above-quoted letter to the editor by one Paul Allen was indeed published on the opinion page of the Santa Clarita Valley (California) Signal on 24 November 2000.  Within five months, someone had re-typed the letter (because the Signal didn't then publish letters to the editor on its web site) and started it circulating on the Internet via e-mail forwards (most of which erroneously stated that it had first been published on 25 April 2002). However, the Paul Allen who wrote this piece was not (as claimed in the example above) the Paul Allen who co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates (and regularly ranks high on lists of the world's wealthiest people)  he was simply a local resident with the same name. Paul Allen wealthiest Nonetheless, after the e-mail version of Paul Allen's editorial had been making the rounds for only a month, the Signal had received such a deluge of messages inquiring whether they had ever really published such a letter that the newspaper's general manager, Tim Whyte, saw fit to reprint it along with an editorial explaining its origins and the phenomenon it had become: At first, I didnt think much of the e-mails. I answered each as carefully and completely as I could. Little did I know, within a week I would go from being managing editor of The Signal to being "The Guy Who Answers E-mails From Curious Members of the LDS Church Throughout the World Who Want to Know if we REALLY Published a Letter from Paul Allen Praising the Mormons." I have tried to remain professional and helpful to those making the queries, but to be quite frank, it has become a bit overwhelming. I haven't counted, but suffice to say the number of inquiries is easily in the several hundreds. The e-mails and phone calls have come to me from all over  Utah, of course, but also a wide array of states ranging from Hawaii to the Beast Coast, and several out of Canada, from Toronto to the remote reaches of Manitoba. (Brrr.) Other nations have been represented, too, including Australia and New Zealand. Apparently, members of the Mormon faith get beat up a lot in the court of public opinion around the nation and world. You wouldn't know it here in Santa Clarita. And again, when I think "Mormon," I still tend to think, "Cute Girls." But there is an almost-sad level of disbelief in these e-mails I receive from people, literally from across the globe, who apparently feel as if their religion is marginalized and ostracized. The people who have sent me notes are invariably incredulous, as if its unlikely that a letter complimentary to the Mormon faith would be penned by someone outside the faith, and then, in turn, published by a community newspaper: Can you please confirm that this letter was really published? Well, yes. It really was. And here, on this page, accompanying this column, is a copy of the original letter. No, I don't have tearsheets available for those who want original copies, but well post this version on our web site  making an exception to our typical policy under which one must actually buy the newspaper to read letters to the editor  so LDS church members worldwide can copy the text of the letter and get the confirmation they seek, right here in this column. Yes, the letter is complimentary to Mormons. Yes, we really published it-nearly two years ago, but thanks to Internet wizardry and LDS members' skepticism, it's all the rage on Planet Earth and in cyberspace right now. And now, back to your regularly scheduled community newspaper. Well over five years after its initial publication, Paul Allen's letter is still the subject of inquiry (here at snopes.com and at The Signal as well), hence its inclusion here. Last updated:  31 March 2006    Sources:   Whyte, Tim.  "Have Faith: Letter Was Really Published."   The [Santa Clarita Valley] Signal.  26 May 2002. Does the nations economy do better when a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office? In her recent campaign stop in Sacramento, Hillary Clinton declared Democrats have the magic touch. It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House, Clinton said on June 5, 2016,speaking at Sacramento City Collegeduring her final push in theCalifornia primary. Its similar to a statement the likely Democratic presidential nominee made on March 21, 2016 in Phoenix, when she said: The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. PolitiFact Arizona checked out that claim andrated it Half True. Heres what they reported: The Clinton family love these comparisons, by the way. In 2015, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True claims from Hillary Clinton a claim that, Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats, and another that, The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True:Since 1961  our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). The score, however, isnt as good for this particular Clinton claim. Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Lynwood, Calif. Other factors involved Clintons Arizona spokesman, Tim Hogan, pointed us to aJuly 2014 studyon the topic from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The study concludes that Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947, when the data was first tracked. However, the economists point out that there are other factors, such as better oil prices and international conditions, that could be driving these better numbers for Democratic presidents. In short, Democrats occupying the Oval Office tend to have a little better luck. Experts we spoke with largely held the same views. Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the statistics, from GDP to the unemployment rate, are striking, but noted that the president does not have all that control. That doesnt prove what the cause is, Frankel said. Christian Weller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, did his own math on the GDP data since 1947. He found that the economy, through the last quarter of 2015 and after inflation, grew 3.8 percent under Democrats and 2.4 percent under Republicans. For President Barack Obama, the growth rate in his first term was 1.8 percent. His current growth rate is 2 percent, but thats still higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush. And his second term hasnt ended yet. Based on estimates, Weller said Obama should hit the 2.4 percent Republican average. Still, Ronald Reagans 3.4 percent growth rate is well ahead of the economy right now under Obama. Other than Obama, every Democrat had a faster growth rate, even (Jimmy) Carter had a slightly higher growth rate than Reagan, Weller said. This is one of the safest talking points for a Democratic contender. However, the asterisks bother Arizona State University presidential historian Brooks Simpson. Secretary Clinton is not exactly telling the whole truth, Simpson said. Simpson referenced Bill Clintons administration, noting that he benefited from some of the economic policies of his predecessor, Republican George H.W. Bush. A 2011 report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that the economy was already in its 22nd month of expansion when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. We asked the Clinton campaign for a response. A spokesman pointed PolitiFact California to previous fact checks on the topic, includingPolitiFact Arizonas. The spokesman also pointed to ablog by the Washington Postthat says Clinton was right on the numbers but questions whether Democrats were responsible for the better economic times or just got lucky. Our ruling Hillary Clinton said in Sacramento, It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House. Its similar to her March statement in Phoenix that The economy always does better when theres a Democrat in the White House. Yes, Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947. But Clinton's comments require several caveats. The current growth in the economy under Obama is lower than the Republican average. Factors such as oil prices also reflect the higher GDP growth under Democratic presidents. On top of that, comparing one period of time to another or one president to another can be problematic. We agree with PolitiFact Arizonas findings and rate Clinton's claim in Sacramento Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ee86664c-a54d-466d-97d0-e5b488faf87e Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. Status:  False. Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). Claim:  President Obama's November 2010 trip to India will cost taxpayers $200 million per day.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] I have no first hand knowledge of this, just passing along. I could not belive this was true (but had also heard it on the air, thought was hype), but when you Google it and read a number of sites, it does appear to be true.  Tell him to stay there !!!  Just in case some of you dont follow current events as closely as I do (yes, I am a "news-junkie")  you may have missed the following information since it never appears in our wonderful newspapers or on most TV news.  The Barack Obama family is leaving tomorrow for a ten day trip to India .  This is going to be an historical and incredible trip, mostly in the numbers of people going, costs, etc.  1)       The entourage will include THREE THOUSAND  people 2)       FORTY aircraft will be making this trip 3)       TWO marine helicopters are being dismantled, flown to India, put back together to fly the Obamas around the country 4)       The entire 500 room Taj Mahal Hotel has been reserved for this group 5)       Cost is estimated to be $200 million PER DAY for ten days 6)       Keep this in mind when you get the next notice of an increase in your taxes!!! No one should ever wonder  why taxpayers are angry about this type of extravagance while most citizens are struggling with day-to-day costs of living, etc. Origins:  On 2 November 2010, the Press Trust of India published an article about U.S. President Barack Obama's upcoming 10-day Asian trip (scheduled to begin in India, followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), stating that  the American chief executive would be accompanied by a contingent of 3,000 people and would be taking over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Palace hotel during his stay in Mumbai, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of about $200 million per day.  Another report from the same source claimed the President would be "protected by a fleet of 34 warships" during his time in Mumbai: article report "The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said. About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments. [President Obama] will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there. "Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity. The information from that Indian article was quickly picked up and repeated as fact by a number of media outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere, but its veracity is dubious.  The only source for the claim about the mind-blowing $200 million per day expense outlay was a single foreign news report which quoted an anonymous Indian official and provided no detail whatsoever (or even a general explanation) about how the $200 million sum was derived or could possibly be expended. Any presidential trip abroad (the purpose of this trip is official business, not a personal "vacation," as claimed by some sources) involves considerable expense to transport and house security officials and presidential aides and staffers, and those costs will likely be on the higher side for this tripsince President Obama will be traveling to a city which was recently the target of terrorist attacks  and will be attending the G20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea, along with other world leaders (all of which requiresheightened security, as well as the presence of additional numbers of U.S. government officials).   G20 Summit However, citing a cost figure of $200 million per day stretches credulity to the breaking point: That number would entail a total outlay of $400 million for the two-day visit (a whopping $2 billion if the cost were applied across the entire ten-day trip), and even if President Obama were accompanied by a prodigious 3,000-person entourage, with the U.S. government picking up the entire tab for all of them, the U.S. would have to be spending the unbelievably staggering sum of $66,000 per person per day to reach that figure.   And, as the the Wall Street Journal observed, the details of the report are "demonstrably incorrect," and it certainly isn't the case that the U.S. will be picking up the tab for everyone traveling with the president: The report is demonstrably incorrect. It says the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai  it hasn't  and that the press traveling with Mr. Obama will be staying there. We won't. Besides, the press pays its own way at considerable cost to the media outlets, not the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, U.S. officials disclaimed numeric figures cited for the President's Asian visit as "wildly inflated" and "absurd": White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," Vietor said.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.  "I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia  that's just comical. "Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.  A military official also [said] the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most. Moreover, CNN  noted that the cost of similar trips undertaken by other presidents came nowhere close to the $200 million per day figure being claimed of President Obama's Asian visit: While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involving about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation. The U.S. government isn't likely to be forthcoming with a cost breakdown for President Obama's Asia trip (particularly since a large chunk of the expenses necessarily involve security arrangements, which obviously can't be publicly outlined or detailed), but it's probably safe to say that the ultimate cost will be well short of the claimed $200 million per diem figure. Some readers who inquired about this item amusingly garbled its details, mistaking Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace hotel for the famous Taj Mahal mausoleum in Agra: Is it true that President Obama rented the entire Taj Mahal and is bringing in the near future, thousands of people to a meeting there? Last updated:  5 November 2010     Martinez, Luis.  "Pentagon Dismisses Reports of 34 Warships for Obama Trip Security."   ABCNews.com.   4 November 2010.     Robinson, Dan.  "Obama Aims to Expand, Strengthen Relationships on 10-Day Asia Trip."   VOANews.com.   1 November 2010.     Weisman, Jonathan.  "Fuzzy Math Dogs Obama's Asia Trip."   The Wall Street Journal.   4 November 2010.     CNN.com.  "Debunking the Myth: The Cost of Obama's Trip to Asia."   5 November 2010.     Economic Times.  "Force One Inspect Venues of Obama's Visit."   3 November 2010.     FOXNews.com.  "Security Entourage Earning Epic Reputation Ahead of Obama India Visit."   4 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "US to Spend USD 200 Mn a Day on Obama's Mumbai Visit."   2 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "White House Paraphernalia to Be in India for Obama Visit."   4 November 2010. During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of Spring 2020, one the familiar features of the daily news cycle was the White House coronavirus task force briefings, at which President Trump frequently spoke and answered questions from the press. Trump regularly boasted at these briefings about how the United States led the world in COVID-19 testing until he finally stomped out of one after being challenged by a reporter to explain why it was important to cast virus testing as if it were a global competition. CNBC reported that: boasted stomped President Donald Trump stormed out of a coronavirus press conference at the White House on Monday after becoming angry with two reporters, one who asked a question about testing, and another who didnt get to ask a question at all. The event in the Rose Garden was meant to give the president a chance to boast about the recent increases in testing, and Trump spoke and answered questions for nearly an hour. At around 5:15 p.m., CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang asked Trump, You have said many times that the U.S. is doing far better than any other country when it comes to testing, to which Trump said, Yes. Jiang, who is Chinese American, continued, Why does that matter? Why is it global competition to you, if every day Americans are still losing their lives, and we are still seeing more cases every day? Theyre losing their lives everywhere in the world, Trump replied, And maybe thats a question you should ask China. Dont ask me. Ask China that question, okay? If you ask them that question, you may get a very unusual answer. As Trump proceeded to call on another reporter, Jiang followed up. Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically? Im not saying it specifically to anybody, Trump responded, growing visibly irate. Im saying that to anyone who would ask a nasty question like that. Trump's boasts about America's being the world leader in testing led to many debates over the tests' accuracy, particularly in how "most" was being reckoned -- was it more accurate to count the gross number of tests being performed (which would generally be higher for countries with larger populations), or to measure the proportion of a country's population that had been tested to date, otherwise known as per capita testing (which is a better gauge of efficiency). CNN reported that: per capita Two giant signs at a White House press conference amplified a claim that President Donald Trump consistently makes: "AMERICA LEADS THE WORLD IN TESTING" "We've prevailed on testing," Trump said, standing between the signs. While the US may have performed the most number of coronavirus tests, it's nowhere near the world's leader in testing per capita, multiple studies show. And health experts say the US isn't close to the rate of testing needed to safely reopen the economy. Some critics asserted that, based on responses offered by Trump when questioned about testing rates, that the president didn't even understand what "per capita" meant:  The remarks offered in the above meme are accurately reproduced. During a May 20, 2020, meeting with Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas, Trump reiterated his common pronouncement that increased testing made the U.S. look bad in comparison by revealing a greater number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. than in other countries: meeting increased testing TRUMP: But when you do 14 million tests, youre going to find more cases. If instead of 14 million tests we did 3 million  like, Germany is at about 3 million; South Korea is at 3 million, and theyve done a very good job. Its not a knock, but were at almost 14 million. Were going to be passing 14 million very soon. So youre going to have more tests. If we do 3 million, everyone would say, Oh, were doing great, you know, in terms of cases. Were going to have more cases. If we did 3 million  maybe thats what we shouldve done. I said  if I wouldve done 3 million, theyd say, Oh, they have very few cases. United States is doing well. Were finding a lot of people. By doing testing, youre finding people. So were doing 14, Germany is doing 3, South Korea doing 3, and I think theyre number two and three. So were way ahead of everybody. But when you do that, you have more cases. So a lot of times, the fake news media will say, You know, there are a lot of cases in the United States. Well, if we didnt do testing at a level that nobody has ever dreamt possible, you wouldnt have very many cases. When asked about how U.S. testing compared to that of other countries on a per capita basis, Trump strangely asserted that "there's many per capitas" and questioned "per capita relative to what?": Q: How does [testing] compare to a per capita basis? Obviously, the United States is much larger than a lot of these European countries. How does our testing compare per capita to those nations? TRUMP: And, you know, when you say per capita, theres many per capitas. Its, like, per capita relative to what? But you can look at just about any category, and were really at the top, meaning positive on a per capita basis, too. Theyve done a great job. Trump appeared to be making the point that whichever metric one used, number of tests or per capita testing rate, the U.S. ranked as the highest in the world (although the latter claim was false). But his proclaiming that "there's many per capitas" and questioning what "per capita relative to what" was cryptic beyond explanation. latter claim The term per capita literally means "by heads," or "per person." Many different concepts can be measured on a per capita basis (anything from car ownership to hamburger consumption), but such measurements are always relative to one thing (i.e., number of people), as many commenters pointed out: per capita   Woodward, Aylin and Shayanne Gal.  "Trump Says the US leads the World in Coronavirus Testing, But This Chart Shows How the Country Still Lags Behind in Tests per Capita."
  Business Insider.  12 May 2020. Wilkie, Christina.  "Trump Abruptly Ends Press Conference After Reporters Challenge Him on Coronavirus Testing."
  CNBC.  11 May 2020. Yan, Holly.  "Trump Says the US leads the World in Testing. But It's Far Behind in Testing per Capita, Studies Show."
  CNN.  12 May 2020. President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on 28 January 2017 restricts immigration into the U.S. from seven countries with predominantly Muslim populations. However, memes and stories quickly appeared to point out that this stay does not include nations where he has business interests. The order suspends entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries. order report Prior to his inauguration, Trump said in January 2017 said that he would not divest himself of ownership of his business holding, but instead turn over management duties to his two sons. Trump's executive branch financial disclosure form, which he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission in 2015, lists LLCs based in Dubai, the U.A.E's largest city: said disclosure form,           Dubai is also the site of a Trump-owned golf course slated for completion in 2017. However, it is not immediately clear whether the sites of Trump's business holdings have anything to do with the countries affected by his executive order. completion Trump is also currently licensing his name for use on two luxury towers in Istanbul, Turkey. The disclosure form stated an income between $1 million and $5 million from that agreement: licensing   The president mentioned the towers in a December 2015 interview with Breitbart News chair Stephen Bannon, who would go on to become Trump's chief advisor. Trump said at the time: interview I have a little conflict of interest 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towerstwo towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two.. In January 2017, the State Department issued a travel warning for Turkey, citing "increased threats from terrorist groups." Trump's FEC filing also included holdings in Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Indonesia. issued Nowrasteh, Alex. "Guide to Trumps Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." The Cato Institute. 26 January 2017. Sullivan, Andy et al. "Trump says won't divest from his business while president." Reuters. 11 January 2017. Riehl, Dan. "Trump blasts Obama while warning of World War III." Breitbart.com. 1 December 2015. U.S. Department of State. "Turkey Travel Warning." travel.state.gov. 25 January 2017. U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego invoked pickup trucks to frame his case for making it easier for college students and young graduates to refinance student loans. The average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000, the Texas Democrat wrote in a May 14, 2014, email blast. That also happens to be the cost of an average size pickup truck! But heres whats truly alarming: students are NOT allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates -- the same way car owners can, Gallego wrote. Democratic-sponsored legislationwould provide federal aid so students and graduates stuck with high interest rates could repay the loans at the lower rates Congress approved for new student loans in 2013, though a May 16, 2014 National Journalnews storycalled the proposal a long shot in the Senate, where Republicans were described as likely to resist higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for the refinancing wrinkle. Gallegos revved our curiosity thrice over. Average student loan debt By email, Gallegos campaign manager, Anthony Gutierrez told us the congressmans average student-loan debt figure came from anews storyposted online May 8, 2014, on the GovBeat blog ofThe Washington Post. That story said more than a million Americans would graduate this year with substantial student loan debt, a conclusion it attributed to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The graduates will have an average of $26,500 in student loans, thePoststory said, joining the tens of millions of other adults who collectively hold more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That burden is largest, on average, in many Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, a few Southeastern states and California. An accompanying U.S. map shows more than 20 states including Texas where the average student loan debt is $22,000 to $25,000  ThePostcredited these conclusions to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using data from the third quarter of 2012. We ventured to a web page for the reserve bank where its entry on student loan debt led us to aresearch paper, published in 2012 and revised in April 2013, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. According to the revised paper, student loan debt increased dramatically over the last several years, from about $346 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $996 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, a surge of nearly 14 percent a year. By comparison, the report said, total credit card debt was $679 billion and auto debt was $783 billion. Then again, the report states, increasing levels of debt were driven largely by growth in the number of borrowers, rather than growth in average debt levels of borrowers. The report said that in the fourth quarter of 2012--a few months after the period analyzed in thePosts chart--the median borrower holding student loan debt owed $13,924 in student loan debt. The average amount of student loan debt across all consumers with student loan debt was $24,699. Thats the latest available calculation, Bill Medley, spokesman for the Kansas City Fed, told us by email. Pricing average pickup trucks Next, did Gallego capture the price of an average-size pickup? Gutierrez told us the campaign researched average used truck prices on the Cars Direct website. He pointed us to an April 5, 2012,articleon the site showing suggested retail prices for five 2010 and 2007 models. These prices are for a base model pickup truck with standard options and no additional accessories, the article said. According to the story, the average manufacturers suggested retail price for a 2010 two-door Ford F-150 was $22,355 and the average for a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 was $21,510--prices close to the $22,000-plus cited by Gallego. Then again, the Cars Direct article listed estimated prices for two 2010 models at less than $22,000. It also listed the price for another 2010 truck as nearly $6,000 higher. But Gallego priced used pickups; we looked on Edmunds.com, which compiles car and truck prices, for manufacturers suggested retail prices for model-year 2013 and 2014 pickups.According to the site, the price for a basic Ford F-150 regular cab starts at $24,070 (2013 model) and $24,735 (2014). A Toyota Tacoma regular cab starts at $17,625 (2013) and $18,125 (2014),the sitesays. Limits on refinancing student loans? Finally, are students really not allowed to refinance college loans? Gutierrez pointed out news articles including a Feb. 20, 2013,Time magazine piecestating that unlike other consumers who have taken advantage of reduced interest rates to refinance purchases, student borrowers have been restricted because Congressnot the free marketsets the interest rate on the vast majority of student debt, and because these loans are not secured by collateral private lenders are loath to undercut the federal governments terms. The Time story noted that student loan debt was at $1 trillionand of that, the federal government backed $864 billion. Also, most of the debt was being carried at an interest rate higher than 6 percent, a figure Time attributed to a Feb. 13, 2013,reportfrom the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Thats almost twice the rate of an average 30-year mortgage, Time said. By telephone,Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, said that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders, though she said this would only happen in cases of substantial income. (Car owners, in contrast, have four-wheeled collateral.) By email, Jarvis said refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Also by phone,Brian Stewartof the Center for American Progress -- which has urged the Democratic-backed action -- said its possible but difficult to refinance student loans with private lenders while there's no way for students to get the federal government to refinance a government-backed loan. Stewart, a spokesman for Generation Progress, a center project focused on young adults, said the center has been researching student-loan issues for about two years. Our ruling Gallego said the average student loan debt in Texas is over $22,000...the cost of an average size pickup truck. But unlike car owners, he said, students are not allowed to refinance their loans at lower rates. This claim reflects the latest estimate of average student-loan debt and a findable price for an average-size pickup. Its also so that most college loans are federally backed and Uncle Sam doesnt offer a way for students and graduates to refinance. On the other hand, students taking loans from banks or other private lenders arent prevented from refinancing; this claim lacks that clarification. We rate this statement as 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. As he proposed more changes to legal immigration, President Donald Trump said the United States lags other countries that admit a higher rate of migrants based on education or training. Most of the 1 million green cards awarded each year are based on a family connection to someone in the United States. Now, Trump wants to flip this so that most permits are based on skills and merit. Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit,Trump saidMay 16. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. We decided to fact-check his international comparison. The numbers mostly check out for the United States, and they are at least close for the other three countries. But context is needed, and its unclear what countries meet the high of 75% he mentioned. The White House press office did not answer our questions. A key thing to remember is that population sizes for these four countries are very different. Estimated 2017 population: United States: 326 million Canada: 37 million Australia: 25 million New Zealand: 5 million The number of people granted permanent residence includes new arrivals and those already in a country who adjust their status. Countries also use different terminology, migration categories and criteria. The term merit, for example, isnt widely used outside of U.S. discussions and could suggest that migrants who get green cards through other avenues  such as refugees or family members of U.S. citizens  dont merit the status. Migrants who get a green card through family links or other streams might have professional degrees and other skills, even if thats not the basis for their admission. Family-based immigration, as a share of their respective population, is similar in Australia, Canada and the United States,studiessay. But the United States does have a significantly lower rate of employment-based immigration. About 1.1 millionpeople became permanent residents in fiscal year 2017. About 138,000 people, or 12%, did so under an employment-based category. (Other categories include refugees and relatives of U.S. citizens.) The employment-based category included multinational executives, skilled workers and professors. A small share of those green cards went to needed unskilled workers. And more than half of the recipients were spouses and children of the primary applicants. In 2017, Canada admittedclose to 286,500permanent residents; about 159,300, or 56%, were under the economic class category. This category includes caregivers, entrepreneurs and other skilled workers. The number reflects applicants and immediate family members. Family members represent about half of the economic category in recent years, according to a nonpartisan Migration Policy Instituteanalysis. AustraliasMigration Programgrantedaround 180,200permanent residences in fiscal year 2016-17. About 124,000, or 68%, were under the skill stream designation. Less than half were the primary applicants. (Overall, Australia granted about 207,200 permanent residences that includes individuals granted residence under other programs, including humanitarian. The skill stream category is about 60% of that 207,200.) The skill stream category included points-tested skilled migrants, entrepreneurs, and workers sponsored by employers. New Zealand approved residence forclose to 48,000people in the 2016-17 fiscal year. About 29,000, or 60%, were under the skilled/business stream. New Zealands skilled/business category covers entrepreneurs, people with exceptional talents, technicians and trade workers. The majority of approvals were for the skilled migrant subcategory, and about half were the primary applicants. So none of the other countries Trump mentioned quite reach job-based admissions of 70 or 75%, as he said. His main point, though, is that the United States rate is much smaller. But that doesnt mean that Canada and Australia are more stingy on family immigration, said Daniel Griswold, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who hasstudiedthose immigration systems. Rather, its a reflection that they are far more open to employment-based immigration. The Migration Policy Institute also looked into family-migration policies in the United States, Canada, and Australia (not New Zealand.) If dependent family members who get green cards under the economic categories are reclassified as family migrants, then family admissions become the largest category in Canada, MPI said. While analyses of family migration tend to focus narrowly on migrants recorded as entering through family-sponsored channels, this is only part of the picture, MPI said. Taking the dependents of migrants who enter a country through other visa categories into consideration reveals more fully the centrality of family migration in many countries. Trump said, Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. In the United States, about 12% of immigrants get employment-based lawful permanent residence. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, residence for similar immigration categories range from 56% to 68%. For all countries, those percentages include professionals family members. If the accompanying family members are reclassified as family migrants, then Canadas family migration is greater than the economic share, a study said. Relative to its population size, the United States takes in roughly the same rate of family migrants as do Canada and Australia. Trumps statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True. While the state of Florida was fleeing Hurricane Matthew on 7 October 2016, the Boston Tribune web site falsely reported that 31 people died in a massive shootout between looters and local business owners in Daytona Beach: Boston Tribune reported In the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, estimated to be one of the most destructive and deadly hurricanes to hit the United States in decades, 31- individuals have been confirmed dead after a group of store owners within a Florida strip mall engaged in a deadly shootout with looters. The incident occurred this morning at approximately 10:00 AM when a large group of 42-looters attempted to forcefully steal from businesses at the Willow Brook shopping center located just outside of Daytona Beach, Florida. [Business owner Conner] Olsen told reporters, As a small business owner who (has) lived in Florida his entire, Im no stranger to natural disasters and the tragedy they bring. Ive gone through this before and have been looted  completely cleaned out. In our current economy my business just couldnt survive large scale theft and vandalism. My options were to fight for my business or go bankrupt  I cant feed my wife and 3 children with thoughts and prayers. According to police reports, the shootout lasted approximately 4-minutes and resulted in the deaths of 31-individuals; 12 store owners and or store employees and 19 would be looters. Chief of Police Daniel Griffin made the following statement during an afternoon press-conference, What occurred at the Willow Brook shopping center today was unnecessary and nothing short of a tragedy. During these difficult and trying times we plead with you to help your neighbors and community members. We urge you to look out for and take care of each other not rob, steal, and shoot at each other. While the effects of Hurricane Matthew are undoubtedly devastating  we are a strong community and we will get through this by working together. Although the Boston Tribune (like the Baltimore Gazette) sounds like a major city newspaper's digital counterpart, it is actually a front for known hoax purveyor Associated Media Coverage, a far older fake news site that usually spreads fabrications about laws or statutes that solely affect a specific subset of the population. A number of fellow fake or "satire" news sites feature disclaimers informing readers their articles are fabricated, but Associated Media Coverage (and the Boston Tribune) do not. Baltimore Gazette Associated Media Coverage sites The image appended to the article (reproduced above) was captioned "Florida Police Officers Arrest Store Owner After Killing Looter," but highlighted visual elements of the photograph indicate it was not taken inside the United States. Moreover, the photograph was captured as early as June 2016 and unrelated to any incidents that occurred during Hurricane Matthew or its aftermath:  Associated Media Coverage falsehoods involve laws that would be a nuisance to specific groups often targeted gun owners or motorcycle enthusiasts; those items included claims of an impending motorcycle curfew in March 2016, a motorcycle speed ban in August 2016, a FDA e-juice ban in mid-2016, a "two pet maximum" ordinance in numerous jurisdictions (leading many households to believe they would be forced to rehome beloved pets), a 50-state ban on open carry, the elimination of Wisconsin's food assistance programs, and a sweeping 23-state ban on hollow point ammunition. curfew speed ban e-juice two pet maximum open carry Wisconsin's ammunition Associated Media Coverage broadened their scope into more upsetting but entirely unfunny fake news items (like the looter shootout), which included claims someone died in a transgender bathroom controversy-related confrontation (a piece published during nationwide debate over the issue), Casey Anthony sought to open a home daycare center, a dead baby was abandoned in a Walmart DVD bin, and Jodi Arias was granted early release from prison. transgender bathroom Casey Anthony DVD bin Jodi Arias