Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?
Claim:  President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2010]  Is it true that "one of the first things Bill Clinton did in office was to issue an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases"?   Origins:  The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at  Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty. While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts. It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel.  That directive was eventually implemented through a  regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army  (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.   directive regulation Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried": a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed. c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners. Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations: Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame. "I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority. Last updated:  16 July 2015
Claim:  St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch runs a charity called Backstoppers that sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund. : : St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the president of Backstoppers, an organization aimed at supporting the families of first responders in crisis, during the controversy in Ferguson.      : Backstoppers sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Is St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch Helping RaiseMoney for Ofc. Darren Wilson?   Origins:  On 24 November 2014, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced in the course of a lengthy press conference that a grand jury had declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown. The decision was both controversial and widely criticized, and it intensified existing criticism regarding McCulloch's putative partiality toward law enforcement officers. McCulloch is the president of the board of Backstoppers, a local organization that supports the families of first responders (particularly those killed in the line of duty). A Washington Post opinion column published following the press conference on 24 November 2014 criticized McCulloch's role in the Mike Brown case with respect to his personal and professional history: president criticized Asked Monday night whether he had any regrets about the way he handled the case, McCulloch replied, "No, not at all." This shouldn't be a surprise, given McCulloch's history. That his father, a police officer, was killed by a black suspect doesn't by itself disqualify him, but his record should have: not a single prosecution of a shooting by police in his 23 years on the job. Four times he presented evidence to a grand jury in such a case and didn't get an indictment; now he can add a fifth. The points made by the columnist were not unique; in fact they dovetailed with rumors that started in St. Louis in the weeks following Brown's death. According to claims that began to circulate on or around 15 September 2014, McCulloch's partiality outstripped even his charitable work and record of not prosecuting officers. Several blog posts from mid-September 2014 focused on an Internet fundraising effort using the web site Teespring.com. Folks with an interest in the case noticed an online T-shirt fundraiser selling shirts that read "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" (with "PRO POLICE" printed on the back) touted a connection between Wilson's defense and McCulloch's organization. The shirt's description explained: explained "I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON" is an officer inspired design to show support for officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri. Donations from purchases will be divided between a fund set up for Officer Wilson at gofundme.com as well as The BackStoppers Inc. organization which can be visited at backstoppers.org for more information. A post on 14 September 2014 included the following board member list (which did not reflect McCulloch's move from Vice President to President of the organization):  The controversy made it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by 15 September 2014, at which time the newspaper spoke with Backstoppers' executive director, Ron Battelle. Battelle told the outlet Backstoppers had not initiated the fundraiser, was not affiliated with it in any fashion, did not know who was responsible for selling the shirts, and should any money be offered from the proceeds to Backstoppers, the group would reject the funds. newspaper The controversy abated but resurfaced on 25 November 2014 in the wake of McCulloch's statement to the press on 24 November 2014. A Facebook user shared an image questioning Backstoppers' connection to the shirts: shared  In response, Backstoppers issued a statement via Facebook, reiterating the fundraiser was not connected with their organization: statement Contrary to recent posts on social media, The BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors. Our mission is to provide assistance to families of police, fire and EMS officers who die in the line of duty. We are currently helping 66 families which includes 64 children. This is and always will be our first priority! We greatly appreciate the support of the St. Louis community! Thank You!! Ultimately, only nineteen "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts were sold during the initial Teespring campaign. It isn't clear who created the fundraiser or how the proceeds were distributed; but any party is free to raise funds for any other party, and someone's pledging half their proceeds to Backstoppers does not indicate Backstoppers was necessarily involved with or even aware of the fundraising effort.    Last updated:  26 November 2014 < 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. On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017. Bernie Sanders lines up fairly close to Donald Trump when it comes to the topic of trade. To some, that means Sanders has some explaining to do. In aninterviewwith theNew York Daily News, Sanders attempted to detail his position. Its about a fundamental inequity in labor standards, Sanders suggested, enabling human rights abuses at the cost of American jobs. I do believe in trade. But it has to be based on principles that are fair, Sanders said. So if you are in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 65 an hour, or you're in Malaysia, where many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions, no, I'm not going to have American workers competing against you under those conditions. Sanders has made trade a big topic on the campaign trail  highlighting Hillary Clintons comments and votes in favor of trade deals. (PolitiFact has documented a lengthy comparison of the two.) Here, we wanted to fact-check Sanders claim that workers in Malaysia  which would be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership  are forced into working under slave-like conditions. In a word, yes. Not only is forced labor widely documented by labor and human rights groups, its openly acknowledged by the U.S. government. From cell phones to sneakers to palm oil The Sanders campaign referred us to a 2014reportfrom Verit, an NGO that monitors labor standard compliance. Verit interviewed 501 workers in Malaysias electronics industry (the countrysleading sector), and found that 28 percent of them were coerced under both global standards and Malaysian law. This work has led us to conclude that forced labour in this industry is systemic and that every company operating in this sector in Malaysia faces a high risk of forced labour in their operations, Dan Viederman, chief executive of Verit,toldthe Guardian in 2014. The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines forced labor usingfour dimensions: unfree recruitment, work and life duress, impossibility of leaving an employer and penalty or menace of penalty. The Malaysian electronics industry violated all these guidelines in some capacity. Like the indentured servants who came to America in the 18th century, the vast majority of foreign workers  largely from other parts of Southeast Asia   were charged excessive job-finding fees and had to take on debt to pay them off, effectively tethering them to the job (unfree recruitment). One in five workers were also deceived about their wages or other employment conditions, and one in three lived in and often confined to crowded, unsafe housing provided by their employer or recruitment agency (work and life durres). Verit also found that 94 percent of workers had their passports withheld by the factory or agent (penalty), though the practice is prohibited by local labor laws . Fifty-seven percent said they couldnt leave their jobs out of fear of getting slapped with high fines, losing their passport, being reported to the authorities or other forms of retribution (impossibility of leaving an employer). But forced labor is by no means limited to one sector. Malaysia has thefourth-largest migrant worker populationin the world, and its 3 million to 6 million foreign workers all are vulnerable to exploitation in a variety of industries, said Abby McGill, the campaigns director for the International Labor Rights Forum. The State Departmentnotesthat passport confiscation was widespread and generally unpunished, and has placed Malaysia in its Tier 3 watch list for human trafficking  the rating reserved for the worst offenders  in2001,2007,2009and2014. In addition to electronics, the U.S. Labor Department currentlyliststhe garments and palm oil industries where labor abuses occurs (palm oil is also cited for child labor). Human Rights Watchreportedon exploited migrant domestic workers in 2011. Amnesty Internationalchronicledthe stories of trafficked, trapped and physically and sexually abused workers in a variety of industries from agriculture to construction in 2010. They buy and sell us like cattle, a 25-year-old Bangladeshi working for a palm oil producer whose customers includes U.S. agricultural giant CargilltoldtheWall Street Journalin 2015. Free trade and chained work The debate over whether free trade stymies, improves or has no bearing at all on working conditions is an ongoing one. International labor standards are actually included in many trade agreements.The United Statesmonitors worker conditions in partner countries, and has spent $275 million to support labor rights since 2001, according toa 2014 Government Accountability Office audit. But despite this, the GAO concluded that theres still a lot of room for improvement. The USTR and Labor Department lack a strategic approach to systematically assess whether partner countries conditions and practices are inconsistent with labor provisions in (free trade agreements), according to the audit. Academics have also pointed out these provisions are oftenambiguous,difficult to enforceorsimplyignored. In other words, agreements on paper dont necessarily translate to improved conditions in real life. Malaysia is actually a prime example of labor rights possibly taking a backseat to free trade. In 2015, it wasupgradedto Tier 2 for human trafficking by the State Departmentover the objections of its own human rights experts. Many perceived the move to bepolitically motivated, as the improved rating made the country eligible to join the TPP. Because of Malaysias poor labor record, it also signed abilateral agreementwith the United States, promising to implement workers rights and protect against forced labor before obtaining trade benefits.Human rightsandlaborrightsgroups, however, are skeptical this will lead to actual reform. The devil is in the details of actual implementation, and Malaysia is a very corrupt place where those with connections and money can get away with not complying with the law  as both Malaysian and migrant workers have found out frequently over the past two decades, said Phil Robertson, the deputy director of Asia at Human Rights Watch. Said McGill of the International Labor Rights Forum: Given that they get everything they want upfront whether they change anything or not (not an ideal negotiating strategy), the labor enforcement provisions are so weak there isn't a stick to force them to comply. That approach has never worked in the history of free trade agreements. No reason to think it will start now. Nonetheless,manyhavearguedyoucanhaveyourfree trade and be humane, too. A2010 study, for example, found that labor conditions have improved in Cambodia as a result of labor provisions in a trade agreement signed with the United States. But many argue that improved working conditions are actually a cascading effect of global trade, not regulation itself. The kinds of adjustments that go with free trade, while painful in the short run, lead to improved labor conditions in the long run, Stanford labor economist Robert Flanagan said in aninterviewabout his book,Globalization and Labor Conditions. Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged that some are certainlyworseoffas a result of global trade. He pointed out that working conditions were terrible in the United States a century ago, but improved when the economy developed and standard of living rose. Do we really think it would a good idea for the U.S. not to have been able to trade in 1916 or 1886? Burtless said. It is very hard to think of anything that has delivered a bigger improvement in the lives of poor workers than expanding their ability to sell to other countries. Period. End of story. To pretend otherwise, that youre going to protect their workers by keeping their products out of our country, flips on its head policies most conducive to improving their lives. Our ruling Sanders said, In Malaysia  many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions. Forced migrant labor and passport withholding is widely documented across Malaysia by human rights and labor groups. The United States acknowledged the abuses in several government reports and databases. While there is a debate about whether free trade can help curtail these abuses, there is no debate to the veracity of Sanders claim. We rate it True. Former car czar Steven Rattner, who actuallyhates the nicknamehe earned overseeing the auto bailout, is pushing back againstproclamationsof a flourishing American manufacturing industry. Again. Rattner wrote an eye-catchingNew York Timesop-edin January calling the industrys post-recession jobs gains a trickle, arguing we need to get real about the so-called renaissance partly because wages for auto workers and manufacturers dropped far more than the average private-sector worker since the end of the recession in June 2009. He revisited some of those points in a March 30, 2014, appearance on ABCsThis Week, which took a break from coverage of Russia and the missing Malaysianplane to examine the state of Made in the USA. We certainly want these kinds of advanced manufacturing jobs. But remember this, manufacturing wages today in America on a per-hour basis are actually a bit lower than average wages in the economy as a whole, he said. And what I mean by that is there are lots of really good high-paying jobs in sectors like education, like IT, like health care, service sectors that are not just entry-level jobs, they are really high-paying jobs, and this is our competitive advantage. Manufacturing jobs are typically seen as a source of higher pay for people who dont earn college degrees, and President Barack Obama put an emphasis on them in his State of the Union address. So PunditFact wondered if Rattner is right: Are per-hour wages in manufacturing a little smaller than average wages for the rest of the American economy? Rattner pointed toU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics datafor average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector, which make up about four-fifths of total private-sector employment. The most recent data for February 2014 shows the average hourly private-sector wage was $20.50. The manufacturing industry average was, as Rattner said, a bit lower at $19.43. Hourly wages are almost $3 higher for employees who produce durable goods, such as cars, phones and computers, than those who make nondurable goods, or things like food, gas and clothes. Weekly wages tell a different story, with manufacturers earning almost $122 more a week than the total worker average in February. The reason for the discrepancy between hourly and weekly wages is simple: Manufacturers work more hours. Anyone can work more hours and make more money, Rattner said. But manufacturers also earn more money an hour when you factor in supervisors.BLS data for Februaryshow average hourly earnings are $24.31 for all private-sector employees and $24.72 for manufacturing employees -- the opposite of what Rattner said. Which dataset is better? The question can incite an economists quarrel. Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, took issue with isolating a dataset that excludes supervisors, saying analysts see the distinction as arbitrary and are increasingly using the whole workforce for their research. The manufacturing industry has a lower percentage of production employees (70.1 percent) than the average for the private-sector workforce (82.7 percent), which accounts for the higher pay when using Rattner's measure, Baker said. Rattner argues viewing the data his way is more representative of the typical workers earnings without being influenced by the top of the pay scale. Another liberal economist and former Obama administration adviser, Jared Bernstein of the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities, faulted Rattner for excluding benefits on top of wages. Manufacturing workers often have benefits, he said. AnotherBLS source for wage data(yes, there are a lot of them) shows that when looking at total compensation (wages plus benefits), manufacturing workers earn $35.14 an hour, which is higher than the $28.44average for careers in the service-providing industry and $29.63 for all private-sector workers in December 2013. Since it's widely believed that workers trade off benefit pay for lower wages, it's a mistake to just consider wages in this sort of comparison when you're dealing with an industry that pays benefits (as opposed to say, fast food), Bernstein said. Matthew Lavoie, National Association of Manufacturers spokesman, said 97 percent of the groups 12,000 members provide health insurance. Rattner conceded manufacturers earn more than service-industry workers when benefits are included in hisNew York Timescolumn. In our interview with Rattner, he anticipated these objections to his claim. But my point remains the same: The perception that manufacturing jobs are better jobs is out of date, Rattner wrote. Note also that over the past year, per-hour wages for all industries rose by 50 cents per hour but in manufacturing, they rose by only 21 cents per hour. The trend is not manufacturing's friend, as myNYTpiecepointed out. Our ruling Rattner was careful onThis Weekto single out data for per-hour wages when he argued manufacturers are not paid as much as the rest of workforce. His claim relies on the most recent data for production workers in the manufacturing industry, who earn about $1 less than the average of their private-sector counterparts. However, factoring in supervisors shows manufacturers make 41 cents more per hour. Adding benefits gives manufacturers more of an edge. We wont take sides and say what dataset we think is best. What we can say is that Rattner makes an accurate point by one measure. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. Jerry Patterson, an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor this year, subsequently said that he somewhat uniquely spoke out for a federal guest-worker program a few years ago. According to a March 30, 2014,news storyin theSan Antonio Express-News, Republicans including state Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston, who's in a May 27, 2014, runoff for the party's lieutenant governor nomination with incumbent David Dewhurst, have talked about not putting language supportive of a guest-worker program in this years party platform, which is to be finalized by delegates to the next state convention in June 2014. Patrick has stumped on securing the Texas-Mexico border, also objecting in a Jan. 25, 2014,Twitter postto the illegal invasion. TheExpress-Newsstory described Patterson, the state land commissioner since 2003, as saying he was the only statewide elected official to speak in favor of the guest-worker plank at the June 2012 state convention where it was initially adopted. Patterson separately said on his2014 campaign website: Many of my elected colleagues privately expressed support, but told me that they just couldnt take the risk. Did Patterson, who often flies his own plane between cities, venture solo in this way? Immigration in 2012 platform The immigration plank, on page 21 ofthe platform, states that mass deportation of all the undocumented individuals in the United States would neither be equitable nor practical, while blanket amnesty would only encourage more illegal entries. The plank also calls for securing the border, modernizing Social Security cards and limiting birthright citizenship to babies born to a U.S. citizen. Finally, the plank calls for a temporary worker program to bring skilled and unskilled workers into the United States for temporary periods of time when no U.S. workers are currently available, to be self-funded through participation fees and fines, the plank says. The guest-worker plank was characterized by proponents at the time as a meaningful breakthrough for the state party. A June 9, 2012, Texas Tribunenews storyquoted TexasGOPvote.com's Bob Price, a convention delegate, as saying adoption of the guest-worker provisions takes away a tool that Democrats have used for years to drive a wedge between conservative Hispanics and Republicans. William Kelberlan, a delegate from Williamson County, told the Tribune: It was a tough pill to swallow; it didn't go down easily. Kelberlan said he recognized the need for immigration reform but thought more time was needed to hammer out the details of what form it should take. Patterson spoke in favor of the guest-worker plank, according to the story, but it was silent on whether he was the sole statewide elected official to do so. Patterson invokes 'cojones' To our inquiry, Patterson indicated he remembers his solo status well. Aint much to elaborate, he said by email. Asked if hed heard the speeches given by other statewide elected officials and why he knows he was alone in this regard, Patterson replied: I know all the statewides. I know what they do and say. I know who hascojones (um, courage) and who doesn't. I was the only one. By email, Steve Munisteri, the party chairman, confirmed Patterson was the only statewide elected official to speak during floor debate of the guest-worker plank and then only after delegates agreed to let him do so, Munisteri said. Separately, Brad Bailey told us he helped draft the relevant language as a delegate from Senate District 11 in Houston. By phone, Bailey said Patterson was alone among statewide elected officials in speaking about the guest-worker section. Main speeches lacked mention of guest-worker idea We didn't have to take anyone's word for this. Munisteri reminded us the party placed video recordings of the convention online. So we watched the speeches given by several statewide elected officials: U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn; Gov. Rick Perry; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst; Attorney General Greg Abbott; Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples and State Comptroller Susan Combs. None  plus Patterson, in his main speech to the convention  aired support for a guest-worker law. In fact, only Staples mentioned conditions near the Texas-Mexico border. Patterson spoke from floor during platform debate But as delegates discussed the party platform, Patterson stepped to a microphone on the convention floor after Munisteri adjudged that two-thirds of the delegates, by a show of hands, had agreed to suspend the rules to let him join the conversation even though he wasnt a delegate. (Hear Pattersons remarks starting about the 11:15 mark of thevideo here.) Patterson opened by describing himself as a conservative who believes the platforms immigration plank and border security go hand in hand. He then said he supported the then-pending state law requiring most voters to present photo identification at the polls as well as initiatives stressing English as the states primary language. Patterson said he also supported a physical barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border, including a fence in some cases. He added that he opposed unconditional birthright citizenship, bilingual balance and restrictions on police officers asking someones immigration status during an apprehension or investigation of a crime. Further, he said, he was opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. But, Patterson said, I will tell you that I very loudly, firmly and with great fervor support a guest-worker program as part of our border security. We have folks in this country who are here to do us harm, Patterson said. They are criminal, they arecoyotes, they run things back and across the border whether they are illegals, whether they are drugs or contraband. And we also have folks in this country, Patterson continued, who want to work hard, pay their taxes, obey our laws. And there is no way for those to come here and do that lawfully because our immigration system is broken. We need a guest-worker, temporary guest-worker program that is in the immigration plank in our platform, he said. Our ruling Patterson said he was unique among statewide elected officials in speaking for the guest-worker section that became part of the Republican Party of Texas platform in 2012. True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's "All in With Chris Hayes" program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. June 20, 2020 Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. incorrect theory segment We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: June 29 And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, its hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you cant do the math in your head, thats a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen.  The COVID Tracking Project    However, Hayes language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trumps rally "may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state." Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. PoliticusUSA Numerous tweets  But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health departments daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. executive order reports Each government report  only issued on weekdays  shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. Monday report report indicates The COVID Tracking Projects reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government.  COVID Tracking Projects COVID Tracking Project July 2 report  June 26 report We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us.  On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: July 1 ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahomas weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: PoliticusUSA ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trumps June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. violate unhealthiest In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as  Brown, Trevor. "Experts: Oklahoma, Among the Unhealthiest States, Faces Heightened Risks for COVID-19."
 Frontline PBS. 16 April 2020. Colarossi, Sean. "Correction: MSNBCs Chris Hayes Misinterpreted Oklahoma Virus Test Data."
 PoliticusUSA. 29 June 2020. Coronavirus.health.ok.gov. "Executive Order Reports." Gupta, Sanjay and Andrea Kane. "How Risky is it to Attend a Trump Campaign Rally During a Pandemic?"
 CNN. 19 June 2020. Lutz, Tom. "Brad Parscale Faces Trump 'Fury' After Tulsa Comeback Rally Flops."
 The Guardian. 21 June 2020. Regan, Helen, Marsh, Jenni, Rahim, Zamira. "Coronavirus Pandemic: Updates From Around The World."
 CNN. 21 June 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "Oklahoma." On Nov. 21, 2019, a rumor started to circulate on social media that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had removed Fox News from "Armed Forces Radio" over the network's coverage of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony during the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump: circulate   No, Fox News has not been removed from "Armed Forces Radio," a misnomer of the American Forces Network Radio (AFN). Navy Capt. Bill Speaks, a Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed to the Associated Press that this rumor was false: Associated Press "We have not cancelled Fox News from American Forces Network programming, either on our radio or TV services." A spokesperson for American Forces Network Radio told us via email: American Forces Network (AFN) Radio has and continues to air FOX radio newscasts and features on many of our radio services. AFN Radio rotates top of the hour radio newscasts between FOX, Associated Press, ABC, CBS and Westwood One radio. While Fox News was not removed from America Forces Network Radio, the network truly was criticized for how it covered Vindman's testimony. Vindman's lawyer sent a letter to Fox News asking it to retract an Oct. 28 segment that aired on Laura Ingraham's prime-time show, "The Ingraham Angle." On the show, guest John Yoo, a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, appeared to suggest that Vindman was guilty of espionage. letter Newsweek reported: reported A law firm representing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman sent Fox News a warning letter on Wednesday asking for the retraction and correction of a segment on Laura Ingraham's show which suggested the colonel might be guilty of espionage. "We are compelled to write because of a deeply flawed and erroneous Fox News segment that first aired on October 28, 2019, the gist of which has since been republished countless times, including by the President of the United States to his 66.9 million Twitter followers." The segment on The Ingraham Angle featured a panel with lawyer John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General and current U.C. Berkeley law professor, and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz. In an exchange with Yoo, Ingraham remarked on something she read about about the colonel, the New York Times reports. "Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English," said Ingraham. "Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?" "I find that astounding and, you know, some people might call that espionage," responded Yoo. Fox News released a statement saying that "Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments": As a guest on FOX News, John Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments and he has subsequently done interviews to clarify what he meant.  Yoo also wrote an op-ed for USA Today on Nov. 1, 2019, in which he claimed that he was talking about Ukraine, not Vindman specifically, and that he has "no reason to question Vindmans patriotism or loyalty to the United States." USA Today Vindman's lawyers also addressed Yoo's Op-Ed in their complaint, writing: writing "On November 1, 2019, Mr. Yoo published an op-ed in USA Today regarding his appearance on Fox News several days earlier. In the Yoo op-ed, Mr. Yoo stated, contrary to fact, that "I didn't call Alexander Vindman a spy." But of course, he did - Mr. Yoo's statement on Fox News expressly accused LTC Vindman of "espionage" and was universally understood to have done so. it is why Mr. Yoo wrote an op-ed seeking to rewrite recorded fact; it is why he begins his op-ed, "I really stepped in it this week." What Mr. Yoo "stepped in" was a lie. Darcy, Oliver.  "Lawyer for Impeachment Witness Lt. Col Vindman Demands Fox News Retract 'False and Defamatory' Segment."
  CNN.  21 November 2019. Associated Press.  "Fox News Was Not Removed From Armed Forces Radio Over Vindman Testimony."
   21 November 2019. Yoo, John.  "John Yoo: No, I Didn't Call Alexander Vindman a Spy. But Ukraine Did Engage in Espionage."
  USA Today.  1 November 2019. Does Arizona have a law limiting the number of dildos a person can have in their home? That rumor has been bouncing around blogs, books, and websites for decades. In December 2018, a Twitter user  renewed interest in this suspiciously strange piece of legislation: renewed   This restriction is not actually codified in Arizona law. But it almost was. Arizona State Rep. Leslie Johnson (R-Mesa) attempted to pass an obscenity law in the 1980s aimed at regulating pornography and banning the sale of dildos. House Bill 2613, which was later dubbed the "dildo bill," would have made the commercial sale of "obscene devices," such as dildos, a felony. The first news report we could find covering the bill was published in the Arizona Daily Star in December 1987:   The original proposal focused only on the sale of "obscene devices" and not their ownership. Alan Sears, the lawyer who drafted the bill for Johnson, said that ownership of such devices was less important as women didn't like using them anyway. However, a provision of the proposed bill stated that ownership of six or more dildos would be considered proof of intent to sell them commercially -- which would have made such ownership a felony. dildos While the bill faced some ridicule from members of the public (some Arizonans reportedly sported bumper stickers reading, "When dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos"), it was eventually passed by both the House and Senate. Ultimately, however, Gov. Rose Mofford vetoed the measure. ridicule passed vetoed Dildo ownership, however, was not at the center of Mofford's decision to veto the bill. The then-Arizona governor's action was based more on the term "obscenity," how it was defined, and how it would be enforced: In her veto message, Mofford said she fully supports the enforcement of tough laws to eliminate obscene material, but "I must regretfully use my veto power, primarily because I believe the bill is unconstitutional." The anti-pornography bill  also known as the "dildo bill" because it would have banned the commercial sale of sexual devices  would have allowed juries to decide what books and movies are obscene by using a standard of community acceptance rather than community tolerance. Moffard said she believes that the acceptance standard could allow higher courts to overturn convictions, so "persons who would otherwise have been convicted under the tolerance standard would go free." She said she also feared that the acceptance standard  a tougher standard than used in several U.S. Supreme Court obscenity decisions  could allow the removal from library shelves and movie theaters of works that are widely recognized as fine literature or works of art. Johnson, who insisted that dildos were used solely to abuse children, filed similar legislation the following year. When the Arizona House amended some of the language in the bill, replacing the word "dildo" with "child molestation devices," Johnson killed the legislation: insisted amended killed The Arizona Legislature disposed of a couple of controversial bills. Rep. Leslie Whiting Johnson, best known for changing hats and hairdos daily, prematurely withdrew her dildo bill after her fellow representatives had amended it to her dissatisfaction. As originally crafted, the bill would have made it a felony to possess more than five sexual devices. That caused Rep. Bobby Raymond, D-Phoenix, to ask: "Which one of my hands will I have to cut off?" The story behind Johnson's obscenity law was eventually boiled down to a factually inaccurate sentence published on the website Dumblaws circa 1999. From there, it spread to a number of listicles concerning "obscure laws" in the United States. Perhaps most famously, photographer Olivia Locher created a visual representation of this rumor in her 2017 book I Fought the Law: Dumblaws listicles obscure laws book   Despite the widespread prevalence of the rumor, no law on the books in Arizona prohibits the number of dildos a person can own. The rumor stemmed from a failed piece of 1989 legislation dubbed the "dildo bill" which, among other things, would have made it a felony to sell sex toys. The "ownership" aspect of the rumor was due to language in the bill stating that owning more than six (not two) dildos would have constituted proof of intent to distribute. The Phoenix New Times reported on the legislation (and several other fabled Arizona statutes) in 2013 and asserted that Arizonans "can have dildos stacked to the rafters" without fear of legal repercussions. reported Carson, Susan.  "Mofford Vetoes Bills on AIDS, Peep Shows, Mountain Bell."
  Arizona Daily Star.  9 July 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Panel Chairman Kills Anti-Porn Bill Amid Protests."
  Arizona Daily Star.  22 March 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Approves AIDS, Porn Bills."
  Arizona Daily Star.  25 June 1988. Bass, Jonathan.  "House OKS Bills on Child Abuse, Jail Fires, Insurance Firms' Books."
  Arizona Daily Star.  15 March 1989. Pires, Kevin.  "Arizonas Two-Dildo Policy and Other Photos of Obscure Laws You Might Be Breaking."
  Flavorwire.  11 November 2013. Locher, Olivia.  I Fought the Law: Photographs by Olivia Locher of the Strangest Laws from Each of the 50 States.
  Chronicle Books, 2017.  ISBN 1452156956. Hendley, Matthew.  "10 Arizona 'Dumb Laws' That Are Complete Horse S**t."
  Phoenix New Times.  11 September 2013.