Did Laphonza Butler, Feinstein's Senate Replacement, Work for Uber and Airbnb?
Following the death of Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Sept. 29, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he would replace her with long-time political operative Laphonza Butler. At the time of his announcement, Butler was president of Emily's List, a political action committee (PAC) aimed at electing pro-choice female, Democratic candidates to office. death announced  president Active in Democratic politics for years, she was a senior adviser to Kamala Harris' 2020 presidential primary campaign and a partner at the firm SCRB Strategies, a well-known political and business consulting group that handled Harris' campaign, Newsom's fight against recall efforts, and several other high-profile Democratic causes. Prior to her consulting work, she was the president of the largest labor union in California  a healthcare and homecare workers union  Service Employees International Union (SEIU)Local 2015. fight against president With this background, claimswent viral after Newsom's announcement that Butler had advised Uber during its fight against labor protections for drivers and had worked on political issues for the vacation rental company Airbnb: claims  (Twitter) Both assertions are factual. As journalist Lee Fang reported, Uber paid SCRB at least $183,000 in the time period in which Butler worked for the firm, which is now named Bearclaw Strategies. Back in 2019, Bloomberg labor reporter Josh Eidelson reported on Butler's work for Uber, specifically writing: reported reported One asset for Uber is Laphonza Butler. She was president of one of the SEIU's largest local unions until last year and is now a partner at SCRB Strategies, a California-based business and political consulting firm. There, Butler has advised and represented Uber in its dealings with organized labor on employment issues and also serves as an adviser to the presidential campaign of Kamala Harris, the Democratic senator from California. An Uber spokesman said Butler brings a valuable perspective to the company's efforts to improve work for drivers, and a spokesman for Harris declined to comment. Butler and her firm didn't respond to requests for comment. It is also public knowledge that Butler left SCRB strategies to work in the policy arm of Airbnb in September of 2020, taking the title "North American Policy Director." As reported by Politico in 2020: reported Laphonza Butler, a partner at a leading California political consulting firm that has helped guide the campaigns of Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, is leaving to join the vacation rental company Airbnb, she confirmed to POLITICO. In that role, she advocated policy positions favorable to Airbnb to the U.S. Congress. She was the author, for example, of a letter to congressional leaders advocating Airbnb's "strong support for the necessary federal funding to implement sustainable, long-term policy solutions for broadband deployment throughout our country in order to provide more opportunity in every city, state and territory of the United States. a letter Because both Uber and Airbnb have publicly confirmed that Butler worked with them, and in the case of the latter was directly employed by the company, we rate the claim as  Airbnb Letter on Rural Broadband 8 Jun 2021. 8 June 2021, https://news.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/06/Airbnb-letter-on-Rural-Broadband-8-Jun-2021.pdf. Fang, Lee. Governor Newsom Selects Political Operative Laphonza Butler to Replace Sen. Feinstein. https://www.leefang.com/p/governor-newsom-selects-political. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Key Kamala Harris Political Consultant Heads to Top Airbnb Post." POLITICO, 4 Sept. 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/kamala-harris-political-consultant-airbnb-409154. "Leadership." EMILYs List, https://emilyslist.org/our-leadership/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Marinucci, Carla. "Here's the Political Team Newsom Has Assembled to Fight the Recall." POLITICO, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.politico.com/states/story/2021/03/17/heres-the-political-team-newsom-has-assembled-to-fight-the-recall-1368535. "Teamsters Union Splits From Uber and Lyft on California Worker Rights Law." Bloomberg.Com, 25 July 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/union-splits-from-uber-and-lyft-on-california-worker-rights-law.
Claim:  The Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit settlement paid out more than $1.25 billion, much of it to fraudulent claimants.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2011] In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997. The case was entitled "Pigford vs. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment:  In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford". The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion.  This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers had now swollen, in a class action suit, to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There was only one teensy problem: The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!!  According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!! Oops!! Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?? Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network", but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action -  Shirley Sherrod. Oops again!! Yes, folks it appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the history of the United States    a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting... Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in thisrace fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of  "Pigford vs. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.But....in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.. Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official,  American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. Origins:  Pigford v. Glickman was a lawsuit filed by Timothy Pigford in 1997 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), naming Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman as the defendant.  Pigford, who was initially joined by an additional 400 plaintiffs (the case eventually expanded into class action lawsuit representing thousands of farmers), maintained that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race in determining how to allocate various government support loans, disaster payments, and other financial assistance to farmers and had failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints of this nature from 1983 to 1997: Litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination  against African American farmers began inAugust 1997 with two suits brought by black farmers, Pigford v. Glickman and Brewington v. Glickman, but its origins go back much further. For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not receiving fair  treatment when they applied to local county  committees (which make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring. Moreover, many claimed that the USDA was not responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency backlog of unresolved complaints began to build after the USDA's Civil Rights Office was closed in 1983.  According to [a USDA] commissioned study, few appeals were made by minority complainants because of the slowness of the process, the lack of confidence in the decision makers, the lack of knowledge about the rules, and the significant bureaucracy involved in the process. Other findings showed that (1) the largest USDA loans (top 1%) went to corporations (65%) and white male farmers (25%); (2) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25%) less than those given towhite males; and (3) 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers. The study reported that the reasons for discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not be easily determined due to "gross deficiencies" in USDA data collection and handling. Under a consent decree that consolidated and settled the Pigford and Brewington cases, any African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believed that he or she was  discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997, was eligible to receive a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.  As of January 2011, a total of $769,400,000 had been paid out 15,388 claimants. total In response to claims that a large number of applicants were not fairly considered because, due to a lack of notice, they filed late and were denied review, Republican Senators George Allen and Charles Grassley introduced unsuccessful Congressional bills (in 2006 and 2007, respectively) to provide a mechanism for these applicants to have their claims considered.  Finally, in January 2008 several members of Congress (one of whom was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois) urged the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to include in an upcoming farm bill a provision allowing "certain claimants who submitted late-filing requests under Pigford v. Glickman consent decree opportunity to receive determinations of their claims on their merits."  These additional claims ultimately resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement: George Allen Charles Grassley urged farm bill Due to concerns about the large number of applicants who did not obtain a determination on the merits of their claims under the original Pigford settlement, Congress included a provision in the 2008 farm bill that permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. This provision did not reopen the previous Pigford litigation, but rather provided such farmers with a new right to sue. Ultimately, 11  separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of over 25,000 black farmers, and these claims were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II). On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. In response to claims that the number of applicants in the Pigford cases exceeded the number of black farmers enumerated by census information, the Congressional Research Service reported that: Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators.   These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who areactually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential Pigford II claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.  In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or Pigford II. For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or Pigford II, but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 Track A claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements. In April 2013, the New York Times reported that the latter settlement was agreed to despite substantial objections from those who maintained that there was no credible basis for it, and that the process for compensation was wide open to fraudulent claims: The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections  until now undisclosed  of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal  the $50,000 payouts to black farmers  had proved a magnet for fraud. The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion. From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination. Shirley Sherrod was the USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development who was forced to resign in July 2010 after video excerpts from her address to a March 2010 NAACP event were posted on the Internet, excerpts which supposedly caught her describing how she discriminated against a white farmer who sought her help in 1986 when his farm was about to be foreclosed on.  However,  a review of the unedited video in its full context revealed that Sherrod said she had in fact extended help to the farmer in question: In the heart of a farm community that still favored whites over blacks, with the USDA known as the "last plantation," Sherrod was tasked with helping Eloise and Roger Spooner save their farm. As she recounted many years later in a now widely viewed speech, Sherrod, by then working at a nonprofit organization that assisted farmers in danger of losing their farms, did not feel particularly motivated to help the Spooners, a white couple. Eventually, as any viewing of the entire speech makes clear, Sherrod changed her mind. She did help the couple, with whom she has remained friendly, and the experience became a turning point in her life when she learned to see beyond skin color and sought to work with blacks and whites battling to save small family farms that were shuttering by the thousands. White House officials subsequently issued an apology to Sherrod and offered her a new position with the USDA (which she declined). Shirley Sherrod and her husband received a share of a $13 million payment as part of the settlement of the Pigford case, as described by Time magazine: It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly 6,000-acre collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions. Back then, local USDA offices with power over loans were run by whites, and it took three times as long, on average, to process loan applications from black farmers as it did for whites. The Reagan Administration had shuttered the civil rights division in the USDA, which meant that complaints about discrimination were routinely discarded or thrown in drawers even as black ownership of farmland was on a steep decline. The failure of New Communities was so emotionally devastating to its participants that Shirley Sherrod's husband Charles later told the Washington Post, "For two years after all this happened, I wouldn't even talk about it. Couldn't talk about it, it hurt so much." But [Shirley] Sherrod did not let the USDA off the hook. New Communities became part of a massive class-action lawsuit against the department that was initially settled in 1999, reopened in 2008 and continues to pay claims for thousands of black farmers found to have been ignored, dismissed or mistreated by the USDA in the 1980s and 1990s. Out of about $1 billion paid out so far  reportedly the biggest civil rights settlement in history  the largest amount went to New Communities, which got some $13 million, with $330,000 awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone. "Thirteen million sounds like a lot, but it was not nearly enough. The land itself is probably worth at least $9 million," says the lawyer for New Communities, Rose Sanders. Last updated:  28 April 2013     Hennessey, Kathleen.  "Hard Feelings About Handling of Shirley Sherrod Have Deep Roots."   Los Angeles Times  4 August 2010.     Pickert, Kate.  "When Shirley Sherrod Was First Wronged by the USDA."   Time.  23 July 2010. On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives: reported Antonin Scalia For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country! According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died this email was sent, using the term "wetworks"  exclusively used in Military meaning "assassination".   The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first)  sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM: e-mail Steve Elmendorf From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.com>Subject: Thanks Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard. From:elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.comTo: john.podesta@gmail.comDate: 2016-02-09 20:56Subject: RE: Thanks I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination: definition  Claims that Scalia was  assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). assassinated However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses: uses  In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders: euphemistically Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. (As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, thats not where Id want to be.) And a media bored to sobs with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. (Consensus: nothing good.) Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloombergs Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it. In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton: article The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. Its been an effective message, and one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders ties to the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urge Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, and spent close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he practically fell out of my chair when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCCs summer donor retreats on Marthas Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest and beyond preposterous, noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the  subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). subject e-mails Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat image and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Bernie at the DSCC retreatOn Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:OmgOn Feb 6, 2016 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com wrote> wrote:Can we tweet?On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:I think we shd give to NY postFrom:Tina@presidentclinton.comTo: bfallon@hillaryclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject:Re: IMG_0692.JPGDSCC event in edgartown last July. Getting exact dateOn Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Will send briefing for the event with attendeesFrom:bfallon@hillaryclinton.comTo: Tina@presidentclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 16:18Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPGThank you. We are on this Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" e-mail (to which Podesta was also party) Seitz-Wald wrote: During his 10 years on the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run. Sanders connection to the DSCC has become a issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees shes been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clintons relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: e-mailed We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him. Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But e-mails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days prior to the 9 February 2016 e-mail and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.  Cottle, Michelle.  "Chelsea Clinton Grows Up."
  The Atlantic.  19 January 2016. Seitz-Wald, Alex.  "Bernie Sanders a Regular at High-Dollar Donor Retreats."
  MSNBC.  9 February 2016. In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. Claim:  Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop.  Examples:   [Collected via Facebook, June 2015] Posted by Michelle Shel-lee Seibel on Monday, June 15, 2015 Michelle Shel-lee Seibel Monday, June 15, 2015   [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and  spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!!  If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers.  This is a new technique used by robbers.  Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. Origins:  Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets  spikes baskets  to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars.  sugar flyers drunk Our first sighting of this November 2009 warning about eggs being thrown at windshields was a 29 October 2009 YahooGroups mail list post. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of this new paragraph which blames matters on the flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target  vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we weren't able to find any such occurrences in the U.S. Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the gendarmes so assaulted experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily. Moreover, it would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately  unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. Variations:   A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby  A November 2012 version included this photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint:  Barbara "pitched battle" Mikkelson Last updated:  17 June 2015    Hoober, John.  "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash."   Lancaster New Era.  3 December 2008  (p. A1). In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Linda Chavez-Thompson kicked off her campaign for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor by assailing the personal wealth of incumbent Republican David Dewhurst, whos jet-fueled three winning statewide campaigns partly from personal funds.Chavez-Thompson, whose background lies in labor unions, said Jan. 4: I know I will be an underdog against Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who is a comfortable millionaire. But most Texans are not millionaires. See her single out the Lone Star state's wealth stereotype at the 1:08 mark of the video at right, which was posted on YouTube by the Texas Tribune.Thanks go to Chavez-Thompson for stating the obvious. We here at PolitiFact aren't millionaires and expect most Texans aren't, either.Still, Chavez-Thompson caused us to wonder: How many Texans are millionaires? And are many Texans well off compared to people elsewhere?We found that the latest statistics on Texas millionaires date back a few years. In 2004, according to an Internal Revenue Service estimate posted online in 2008, Texas was home to 108,000 individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. (Why the $1.5 million benchmark? We don't know, but we suspect that a meager $1 million doesn't go as far as it used to. )Karl Eschbach, the state demographer, peeked at the same analysis and offered a quick caveat: The estimate was reached before the nation entered a recession partly driven by plunging home values, fueling drops in net worth.In 2004, 1 in 208 Texans were in the $1.5-million wealth tier--about 1/2 of 1 percent of the state's nearly 22.5 million residents. Texas ranked 37th nationally in its share of individuals with net worth of $1.5 million or more. Connecticut ranked first, Florida second, the District of Columbia third.Eschbach noted that the wealthiest people in Texas were better off than their rich counterparts in most states. In 2004, Texas ranked 18th in the average net worth of individuals whose net worth was $1.5 million or more. The average net wealth of such Texans was more than $4.5 million.We also found a 2001 estimate, based on an IRS sampling of federal tax returns, suggesting Texas was home to 182,000 millionaires, amounting to less than 1 percent of its 21.3 million residents that year.California was the heady home to 572,000 millionaires, New York to 317,000 and Florida to 249,000Even Illinois had more millionaires, at 185,000, making us scratch our heads: When was the last time peacock-proud Texans had to fret about keeping up with residents of the Land of Lincoln?In her campaign kickoff speech, Chavez-Thompson didnt recap the less salutary fact that Texas families rated as poorer than families nationally. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau, half of American households had income exceeding $50,740 and half made less than that. Texas had a median household income of $47,548.Of course, Texas still had enclaves of wealth. According to the bureaus study, the Dallas suburb of Plano was a nationally prominent pocket of lucre, with a median household income of $84,492.At the other end of the scale, the state retained bastions of poverty along the Mexico border. Residents of El Paso County had median household incomes of $34,980 while residents of Hidalgo and Cameron counties had median incomes of $30,295 and $29,347, respectively, both ranking worse off than other U.S. counties.As of 2008, nearly 16 percent of Texans (3.8 million residents) lived in poverty, with 22.5 percent of children living in poverty, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for government aid to low-income residents. Nationally, 13.2 percent of residents lived in poverty, including 18.2 percent of children.Eschbach said sizing up the state's wealth is no cinch.You have a lot of major corporations headquartered here. You've got a lot of wealth creation, Eschbach said. In that respect, we certainly aren't the wealthiest state or the poorest state. We do have a large representation of very disadvantaged people. At the same time, we have a robust economy.Much debate lies in the details. Yet to Eschbach and the rest of Texas, Chavez-Thompson's statement was no surprise.We rate her statement True. A set of gruesome photographs supposedly showing the aftermath of a "pico jackfruit snake" bite is frequently shared online. We'll be posting these photographs below. As they show a severe hand injury, this article may not suitable for all viewers. The photographs first went viral in August 2017 after they were posted to the Facebook group Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in New York. The first photograph in the set shows what appears to be a small cut on a person's thumb. Subsequent photographs show the injury worsening, due to the snake's venomous bite, until eventually the thumb is amputated. Again, the following photographs may not be suitable for all viewers:   We haven't been able to uncover too many specifics about these photographs, such as where they were taken or the identity of the snake-bit victim. When these images first started circulating on Facebook in 2017 (the original post has since been deleted), the snake was identified as a "sharp-nosed viper," not a "pico jackfruit snake."  In fact, we found no snake by the latter's name. It likely refers to a bushmaster snake, another genus of venomous pit-vipers, which is known by a variety of names across South America, such as the pineapple snake, the silent rattlesnake, and the stinging jackfruit.  Regardless of the specific species of snake, these photographs appear to provide a genuine look at the painful aftermath of a venomous snakebite. News.com.au talked to Brian Fry, an associate professor in the school of biological sciences at the University of Queensland, when these images first went viral:  News.com.au That type of snake [Sharp-nosed viper] has a venom that is extremely tissue destroying, Dr Fry told news.com.au. The reason for this is that they kill their prey by haemorrhagic shock, where some parts of the venom damage the blood vessel walls, while other parts destroy the ability of the blood to clot, leading to a state of massive internal bleeding in a prey animal. As Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, Dr Fry said because it is a Chinese snake; antivenom for a bite like this might be hard to come by in remote areas. If it was in a private collection somewhere, they probably didnt have it and likely none of the nearby zoos would either, he explained. Thus, theyd have to suffer through the full effects. While we haven't been able to find much information about this specific set of photographs, we have found other snake-bite cases that resulted in similar injuries. A 2015 article from the BBC explained some of the science behind deadly venomous snake bites: cases resulted similar injuries BBC Snake venom is made up of several hundred proteins which all have a slightly different toxic effect on the human body. One snake's poison may not be like another's, even if they are from the same species. But, on the whole, there are two main ways snakes make us suffer  by attacking the circulatory system (ie. the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death. Other venoms can increase blood pressure, decrease blood pressure, prevent bleeding or create it. They are all bad news. Neurotoxic venom tends to act more quickly, attacking the nervous system and stopping nerve signals getting through to the muscles. This means paralysis, starting at the head, moving down the body until, if untreated, the diaphragm is paralysed and the patient can't breathe. A classic sign of this is ptosis, when people can't keep their eyes open. Around the area of the bite, necrosis can set in. That happens when the venom destroys nearby muscles, tissues and cells. Long-term, this can lead to amputations, the loss of the use of a limb or the need for multiple skin grafts. In sum, the above photographs most likely show the gruesome aftermath of a snake bite, but because we were unable to uncover specific details about the pictures, we've rated this claim "Unproven." Brown, Vanessa.  "Horror Snake Bite Causes Victims Thumb to Turn Black Before Being Amputated"
  News.com.au.  15 August 2017. Weisberger, Mindy.  "What Should You Do If You're Bitten by a Venomous Snake?"
  Live Science.  2 June 2019. BBC.  "The amazing science behind fatal snake bites."
  13 September 2015. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 An image circulated on Facebook shows small children in handcuffs being led into a law enforcement vehicle, along with claims that the pictured children were immigrants who had been taken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of the Trump administration's controversial "zero tolerance" policy. Under that policy, migrant parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry were criminally charged and their children taken from them:   Although hundreds of immigrant children, including some infants, were taken from their parents, the image seen here is unrelated to that activity. The photograph has been online since 2009 and is associated with a Tea Party protest in West Palm Beach, Florida, during which parents brought their kids for a mock arrest to demonstrate how they are being saddled with debt from government spending. taken The alternate weekly newspaper Broward Palm Beach New Times featured the image in a 14 April 2014 story about the demonstration under the caption "Hopefully the cops won't mistake the protesters for real criminals." The New Times reported of the event that: story If you have children, and you'd like to exploit those children for your political gains, and if you have the money to rent those children prison uniforms, you should totally bring them to downtown West Palm Beach on Wednesday. That's when people protesting government spending will bring 20-30 children dressed in prison uniforms and put them in fake debtor jails. It's meant to show how children will have to pay for wasteful government spending of today. And it's also a great way to ensure continued work for psychologists of tomorrow. The event is part of a nationwide Tea Party demonstration put on by Libertarians, Republicans, and others who think economic stimulus bills are a good occasion to put our children into fake debtor jails. Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County and an organizer of the event, said the fake jails will be two dimensional, meaning the kids won't actually be held captive at any point. Except by the government's excessive debt. This same photograph was similarly used outside its original context as part of a meme in 2012, but that time it was employed to scare parents about the looming "police state" as behavioral issues in school were being treated as crimes: meme   Barton, Eric.  "Children with No Financial Future to Be Jailed."
  [Broward Palm Beach] New Times.  14 April 2009. Shapiro, Leslie and Manas Sharma.  "How Many Migrant Children Are Still Separated from Their Families?"
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2018. Ainsley, Julia and Jane C. Timm.   "1,995 Children Separated from Families at Border Under 'Zero Tolerance' Policy."
  NBC News.  15 June 2018. In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE  Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.  You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers   Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica.  "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral."   The Daily Dot.  30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence.  "Fascism Anyone?"   Free Inquiry.  31 March 2003. The Right Stuff.  "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular."   22 January 2014.