Parkland Memorial Hospital and Undocumented Immigrants
Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1).
The alternative minimum tax indeed was started to tax the rich  specifically rich people avoiding income taxes. On Jan. 17, 1969, Treasury Secretary Joseph W. Barr told Congress that 155 taxpayers making $200,000 or more found a legal way to not pay any taxes on their 1966 income. That shook lawmakers into creating the alternative minimum tax in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. (For comparison's sake, $200,000 in 1966 is nearly $1.3-million in 2007, according to government-run inflation calculators.) Because of the law, people who are able to use deductions and legal shelters to lower their tax bill too much must pay a minimum income tax, the AMT. Under the law, taxpayers who meet the AMT threshold must pay the higher tax bill, whether it's their actual bill or the AMT. But because of the way the law calculates who meets the threshold, more and more people have been swept into the program. By 2006, 3.5-million taxpayers fell under the AMT, which equates to about 4 percent of American taxpayers, according to the Congressional Research Service. That brought in $24-billion in taxes. But that was with a patch by Congress that limited how many taxpayers are affected. Without a change for 2007, 23.4-million taxpayers are going to be paying the AMT, sending $70-billion to the federal government, according to an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Policymakers have been talking for years about changing the formula that triggers the AMT so that it only catches the very wealthiest taxpayers, but so far the rewrite hasn't happened. On the Feb. 24, 2011, edition of Fox NewsThe OReilly Factor, host Bill OReilly said that the jobs picture is better inright to work states-- that is, states in which workers can refuse to pay dues or fees to the union that represents them in bargaining.The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do, OReilly said while interviewing Caroline Heldman, a political scientist at Occidental College.We thought wed check to see whether OReilly is correct.First, some background. According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 22 states have passed some form of right-to-work law (the exact provisions can vary) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. The other 28 states do not have such laws.To test OReillys claim, we turned to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which is the official source for unemployment statistics in the United States. BLSmost recent state-by state datais for December 2010.We consulted with Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, about the fairest way to look at the data. We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, Californias unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyomings.When we did the math, we found that the unemployment rate in the 22 right-to-work states was 9.17 percent, compared to 9.65 in the 28 non-right-to-work states. (The national unemployment rate that month was 9.4 percent that month -- right in the middle.) So OReilly is basically correct.His only shortcoming was his use of the phrase much lower level of unemployment. The difference for December 2010 was only about half a percentage point, which is fairly modest, given that the range of state unemployment figures stretched from 3.8 in North Dakota to 14.5 in Nevada.As always, theres a question about causation -- that is, whether right-to-work status actually produces low unemployment. Of the 11 states with the lowest unemployment (there was a tie for 10th place) eight were right-to-work states. Of those, seven states -- North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma -- are from the Great Plains and the Mountain West, which have in general been less hard-hit during the recent recession.To see whether today is an unusual situation, we asked the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation whether they had historical data on the unemployment gap. They said they did not. James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that numbers hes run suggest that in 2008, before the worst of the recession set in, the gap was slightly larger -- about eight-tenths of a percentage point  -- but was in the same general ballpark.In any case, none of the economists we spoke to thought the gap was especially surprising, either now or historically.So where does that leave us in terms of OReillys claim? He said that right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do. To say its much lower is a stretch, but he's right that it is lower. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True. Since at least July 2021, online advertisements have displayed the words: "[Pics] Drone Captures Photos We're Not Supposed to See." It showed a purported drone photograph of a massive nest or other object hanging off a telephone pole or power lines. The ads appeared to promise answers. For example, this ad appeared next to an article on the 10news.com website. 10news.com  The ad showed a strange object blanketing power lines or a telephone pole.  A variation of the ad said: "Drone Snaps Photos No One Should Ever See." A third version read: "Photos That Can Give You A New Perspective." They were sponsored by the Definition.org website, which has quite the track record for misleading clickbait. The ad was hosted by the Outbrain advertising network. quite the track record misleading clickbait Clicking on the ads led to a 39-page slideshow article and a headline that read: "Drone Photos Taken In Mid Air Will Have You Feeling Uneasy." article The article contained several photographs that appeared to be shot from the air, whether by a drone, helicopter, or airplane. One claimed it showed the aftermath of a residential explosion. Another described a shot that was purportedly captured over Barcelona, Spain. We also found a picture that was said to show volcanic activity in Iceland. a residential explosion Another Barcelona, Spain picture Iceland We clicked through all 39 pages. The article never mentioned the photograph from the ad. It was clickbait. We clicked "next page" nearly 40 times so you dont have to. The picture in the ad was not captured high in the sky using a drone. It appeared to be shot on the ground by artist and photographer Dillon Marsh of Dillon Marsh Photography. We found no credit to Marsh on the Definition.org website. Dillon Marsh Dillon Marsh Photography The picture showed a large birds' nest for the sociable weaver, built on a telephone pole. The bird species lives in the Kalahari region of southern Africa. sociable weaver  Sociable weavers in Lijjersdraai Picnic Site at Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Northern Cape, South Africa. (Courtesy: Bernard Dupont/Flickr)  The only place they can be found in the United States is with the San Diego Zoo. The zoo described the nests built by sociable weavers as providing enough living space for an "entire colony as well as for future residents." The nests can hold up to 400 birds and can potentially last an entire century. described  Weaver birds' nests on the top of telegraph and telephone poles in the Namib desert region of southwest Africa. (Courtesy: Matt Mawson/Getty Images)  Nests built by the species are made from large twigs, dry grasses, straw, soft plants, cotton, fur, and fluff. The zoo also published that a "proper nesting tree has a long, smooth trunk and high branches to discourage slithering predators." This is perhaps what makes a telephone pole the perfect trunk for sociable weavers. The nests keep the sociable weavers cool in the summer and warm on cold nights. They welcome other birds inside, such as the South African pygmy falcon, pied barbet, familiar chat, red-headed finch, ashy tit, and rosy-faced lovebird. Vultures, eagles, and owls can also sometimes be seen on top of the nests. The added company is said to make for a more secure home from predators.  A view from underneath a sociable weaver nest. (Courtesy: Rui Ornelas/Flickr)  As for food, the zoo's page about the sociable weaver said that they "need less water than any other bird" and that "most never take a drink." They get their moisture from bugs. For more on the species, visit the San Diego Zoo website. San Diego Zoo website Several other photographs of the nests can be viewed on the Getty Images website. Several other photographs nests viewed In sum, ads promised to reveal something about a strange drone photograph that "we're not supposed to see." The long articles that resulted from the ads never mentioned the picture. In reality, it was shot from ground level and showed a massive nest built on a telephone pole by sociable weavers. Note: Photographs from Flickr are credited to Bernard Dupont and Rui Ornelas. Matt Mawson shot the Getty Images picture. The photograph in the ad, which went uncredited by the advertiser, appeared to originally be captured by Dillon Marsh. Bernard Dupont Rui Ornelas Matt Mawson Dillon Marsh Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. In late 2019, concerned readers asked us about a series of widely shared Facebook posts that claimed to include photographic evidence of a new tactic being employed by sex traffickers in the state of Florida, and in the city of Tampa, in particular.  The earliest example of the post that we found was published on Nov. 19. It included three photographs that appeared to show a road at night, with a car pulled over and a person lying on his or her back in the middle of the road. The message read: read "This Shit Happened To My Lil Brother Last Night In Tampa, Sex Trafficking Is Real, These People Lay In The Middle Of The Road And Act Like Their Car Broke Down Or Play Hurt For You To Stop. When U Get Out The Car They Attack. If Yall See Anything Like This, Dont Hesitate To Run Their Ass Over. If U Scared Then Try Your Best To Go Around, But Whatever You Do, Dont Get Out Of Your Car, Lock Your Doors And Keep It Moving....!!!!!!!!!!!"   Over the course of the following days and weeks, the same or similar messages, using the same photographs, were shared hundreds of thousands of times. In some cases, the "lying in the road" method was identified as a sex trafficking ruse specific to Tampa, and in other cases specific to the state of Florida. In still other instances, no geographic marker was provided, giving many readers the impression that sex traffickers all across the United States were using the same ruse. In each case, the Facebook post claimed that the photographs were merely one illustration of a broader trend of incidents, and that the purported "lying-in-the-road" ruse was a prevalent sex trafficking tactic.  some cases Tampa Florida still other In reality, we found no evidence to support or corroborate the claim that a pattern of incidents existed, in Tampa, in Florida, or anywhere in the United States, in which sex traffickers attempted to kidnap unsuspecting motorists by tricking them into stopping their cars by lying in the middle of the road. Nor did we find any evidence that the photographs included in the November and December 2019 Facebook posts showed a specific incident of attempted sex trafficking.  A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (akin to the "state police" found in other states) told Snopes that the agency "has not heard of this tactic in Tampa or elsewhere." A spokesperson for the Tampa Police Department told Snopes much the same and emphasized that "No such incident took place in Tampa." The spokesperson added, "We have not heard of this method or tactic being used in our jurisdiction." A spokesperson for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (the county where Tampa is located) also told Snopes: "No reports have been filed related to this incident or matching what is described in the post, so we can not confirm if it is related to human trafficking or if it is even real." Laura Palumbo, communications director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, told Snopes in a statement that: "Our organization is not aware of any reports of human trafficking similar to the one described in these viral social media posts ... Although it may be possible that in isolated incidents human trafficking attempts like this have occurred in the past, it is unlikely that this is a common trend." Both Theresa Prichard, associate director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, and Kathleen Kempe, senior director of the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, also told Snopes they had never heard of any such sex trafficking tactic.  It's not clear what the origins of the photographs were. We put a series of questions to the Cornelius King Facebook account above where the trafficking post originated, requesting to speak to his brother, who according to the post was a firsthand witness to the alleged incident shown in the photographs. We asked whether he, his brother, or anyone else had reported the alleged incident to any law enforcement agency, the exact time and location of the incident, and we requested any evidence that might corroborate the claim that the alleged incident was connected to sex trafficking. We received no response.  It's also unclear whether the photographs were authentic or staged, perhaps as part of a stunt, prank, advertisement, or film of some kind. If they were authentic, it's not clear what the motives or state of mind were of the person shown lying in the road. The photographs themselves do not contain any elements or features whose presence indicates a connection to sex trafficking, in particular, as opposed to several other explanations. Since we have not yet discovered the origins of, and facts surrounding, the photographs, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that they show a specific instance of attempted kidnapping or sex trafficking. However, based on the responses provided by several law enforcement agencies and relevant non-profit organizations, we can say that no broader pattern or trend of incidents exists in Tampa, or Florida, or in the United States, whereby motorists are tricked into stopping their cars by a person lying in the middle of the road, as part of a sex trafficking plot.  All of the widely shared Facebook posts cited above claimed that the photographs were an illustration of a broader trend. As a result, we are issuing a rating of In April 2023, a rumor began to spread that claimed Twitter owner Elon Musk had revealed a new line of CBD gummies that could "reverse dementia." According to the story, Musk's gummy product sparked a "huge lawsuit" with Fox News. However, none of this was true. Musk was simply the latest famous person to have his image and likeness used by scammers without permission in an attempt to push miracle promises about CBD or keto gummies. He has nothing to do with any of these products. While the answer here is a fairly simple "it's all fake," the massive reach of these gummy scams might surprise some readers. As of May 18, the scam was still making the rounds in at least one paid ad on Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The ad on a Facebook page named Aromathy read, "Media Backlash Over New Musk Business Announcement. Elon Has a Response. His New Business Venture Has Been Under Scrutiny By Media."  The ad led to a fake article onaromasense.shop that was designed to fool readers into believing they were reading from the Fox News website. Many of the Facebook users who commented on the ad believed that the post was a real news announcement. For example, one person commented, "MEDIA IS AGAINST ANYTHING THAT IS GOOD!! IGNORE THEM!" Some users also appeared to think that Musk made the post himself, with one person writing, "Don't pay attention to the media! So many are fake and bias! Be true to yourself! I trust you." In other words, Fox News and Elon Musk may have been included together by scammers to target easily influenced users who have conservative political leanings and a distrust of mainstream news media. To create the fake Fox News article, scammers copied the logo and article layout from foxnews.com and replicated it on the aromasense.shop website. Scammers have been doing this design-replication process with the logos and designs of multiple publishers for years. The article began with the headline, "Elon Musk reverses dementia, solution sparks huge lawsuit pressure on Fox, he finally fights back on air."  The body of the fictional story was a template that scammers had used many times before about various TV personalities who had their own shows. However, in this case, the article didn't really make sense to be used with Musk since he didn't have a show. The fake article began as follows: (Fox) - In an Exclusive Interview, Elon Musk, a business magnate and investor, CEO of SpaceX, Tesla, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. reveals that the show will be ending after his latest business sparks tension with Martha MacCallum. During a heated episode last week, Elon Musk made headlines after revealing his new CBD line on Live TV. Martha MacCallum was outraged saying she will be filing a lawsuit against Elon Musk and Fox for violating his contract and 'scaring-off' sponsors. Elon Musk responded with this: "I know Martha is just coming after my timeslot. I am not giving in to 'Cancel Culture'. When I started this whole thing back in 2018, it really was just a part time passion project and a way for me to give back. After being given so much, I figured there was no better time to make Impact Garden CBD Gummies available to everyone, as it can help thousands of people experience life pain-free and live much happier lives." His product, Impact Garden CBD Gummies, has been flying off the shelves within minutes and Elon Musk says his number one struggle as CEO is being able to keep up with demand. His CBD wellness line is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than those being offered by Bayer and other "Big Pharma" companies. Marthan MacCallum was furious after seeing multiple sponsors sue Fox News Network. Martha is now calling for Elon Musk to be indicted, saying: "I am happy Elon Musk found something to replace prescriptions, but his announcement was a direct breach of contract. Fox News should sue him immediately and he should formally apologize." ... Elon Musk eventually admitted that although Martha MacCallum is enraged, other Fox hosts has been supportive of him. Tucker Carlson even went on Live TV to say that:"Impact Garden CBD Gummieshas completely changed my life and it's clear that MacCallum is attempting a Coup." Again, this article was fictional. The story about Musk, CBD gummies that can "reverse dementia," Fox News, Martha MacCallum, and Tucker Carlson all never happened. (Vitality Labs CBD Gummies, Organicore CBD Gummies, and other product names were also mentioned.) For more information on CBD and keto gummies scams, we recommend a recent story about Ree Drummond, another celebrity whose image and likeness were also used by scammers to push these products. a recent story about Ree Drummond If any readers were scammed and ordered any gummy products after being led to believe that Musk or other celebrities endorsed them, we recommend filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) We also advise readers to call their credit card company to dispute the charges. It may be a good idea to block future charges from the sellers in question or to get a new card number altogether, as many of these scams sign customers up to be charged subscription fees of hundreds of dollars per month. Bear in mind that, while it is rare, scammers sometimes use the exact name or a similar name of a real CBD company without permission to push these sorts of scams. In those minority of cases, there's no evidence that the company had any involvement in the activity. We've received word from users in recent months who said that they were being charged for these sorts of gummy products despite having no recollection of ordering them. Some people who left messages for our reporters even said that along with having no memory of ordering the products, they also had no charges on their credit card, yet still received the products at their doorstep. It's possible that some of these apparently unauthorized purchases occurred in the aftermath of what's known as card skimming. The FBI has said of the practice, "Skimming occurs when devices illegally installed on ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, or fuel pumps capture data or record cardholders' PINs. Criminals use the data to create fake debit or credit cards and then steal from victims' accounts. It is estimated that skimming costs financial institutions and consumers more than $1 billion each year." card skimming We are continuing to look into various aspects of these CBD and keto scams, including something associated with purported "fulfillment center" P.O. Box addresses in Smyrna, Tennessee, and Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as some activity apparently occurring in Tampa, Florida. "Elon Musk Reverses Dementia, Solution Sparks Huge Lawsuit Pressure on Fox, He Finally Fights Back on Air." AromaSense, https://aromasense.shop/. Liles, Jordan. "Is Ree Drummond Leaving Food Network to Sell Keto Gummies?" Snopes, 15 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ree-drummond-leave-food-network-keto-gummies/. "Skimming." Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/skimming. Smith, Daeshen. "Better Business Bureau Warns Customers to Be Mindful of Card Skimming Schemes." Fox 10 News, 25 Apr. 2023, https://www.fox10tv.com/2023/04/25/better-business-bureau-warns-customers-be-mindful-card-skimming-schemes/. On 29 January 2017, a community member at the Daily Kos posted in a string of tweets by "The Resisterhood" account, which claimed that because President Donald Trump had filed early for re-election, it means that nonprofit organizations cannotoppose him without risking their nonprofit status. The story, which was widely shared, was created in a portion of the site that allows Daily Kos community members to create their own posts: claimed   code Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. It is true that President Trump filed a letteron Inauguration Day, 20 January 2017, notifying the Federal Elections Commission that he has met the legal threshold for filing for reelection in 2020 (though the letter says that it is not a formal candidate announcement). letter The move appears to be geared toward getting a fundraising head start, as legal experts agree that Trump becoming a de facto candidate for 2020 on his first day in office will have no effecton the activities of charities. In the era of perpetual campaigning, tax laws have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service to mean that charities are free to criticize or praise public office holders so long as they avoid electioneering  which they are prohibited from doing anyway, said Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney whorepresents nonprofit organizations: Even though Trump is a candidate for the 2020 election now that he's registered, that really should not stop any charity from commenting on how hes doing as president of the United Statesnow as long as they don't put in in the context of the 2020 election...The reality is that as long as they don'tmention the election, which they shouldn't be doing anyway as charities, they're going to be fine. He added the caveat: "Thats assuming Trump obeys the law." The Lawyers Alliance for New York later sent out a notice addressing the rumor: notice False Rumor: Nonprofit organizations cannot criticize President Trump because he filed a Statement of Candidacy form with the Federal Election Commission regarding the 2020 election. True: Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot take a position on who should win an election, such as the 2020 Presidential election. But all public charities can: criticize or praise sitting public officials, including the President, for actions that they take while in office. take a position on issues, such as environment, refugees, or school reform. take a position on specific government actions, including Executive Orders, and proposed laws and regulations. Taking such a position may count towards a public charitys limit on lobbying activity, and if the charity spends more than a minimal amount of money on this activity it may be required to register as a lobbyist, but only if it asks a public official to act or asks members of the public to contact a public official. Notre Dame law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer agreed, saying in the modern era, most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning, whether they are formally declared as candidates or not: Charities can praise or criticize [for example] representativesas long as they do it in a way thats about them being in the House. The views [of the IRS] has always been obviously you can praise or criticize someone because they're a public official, as a public official, even if they're running. Loyola law professor Ellen Aprill concurred, noting that Trump himself had advocated for lifting the prohibition on charities and campaigning: It seems inconsistent with the intent behind the campaign intervention prohibition for a president to prevent 501(c)(3)'s from criticizing his policies and actions by declaring a candidacy so far in advance. Moreover, Trump is on record as wanting to eliminate the campaign intervention prohibition, although we have not seen anything on that since he became President. Nonprofits can address current topics like the environment, President Trump's proposal to build a new U.S.-Mexico border wall, or his recent executive order restricting refugee entry into the United States. They are also free to litigate on causes, as the American Civil Liberties Union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have done in recent high-profile cases. The fact that he has filed campaign paperwork with the FEC early does not mean any of these organizations are suddenly muzzled. Mayer also pointed out that pro-President Trump nonprofits are under the same laws as all the others, which casts further doubt on his early re-election filing being about anything other than getting a fundraising advantage. Pollwatcher."Trump Filed For Reelection In 2020 On Jan 20 2017. Why It Matters."
Daily Kos (community post).29 January 2017. The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Internal Revenue Service. Lawyers Alliance for New York."Nonprofit Organizations Can Speak Out About Controversial Government Actions."
31 January 2017. Gold, Matea, andNarayanswamy, Anu."Trump already has socked away more than $7 million for his 2020 reelection."
The Washington Post.31 January 2017. Claim: Starbucks is giving away free lifetime passes to Facebook users who like and share a post.  Origins:In October2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to the Starbucks coffee chain in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary: The embedded links involved a variety of URLs, some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported lifetime pass to Starbucks were routed to a pagereading "Starbucks Is Giving Free Lifetime Pass on it's [sic] 44th Anniversary  (83 Pass Remaining)," which clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL): As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains or sites linked to Starbucks. Users were invited to share the come-on via Facebook in order to further spread the hoax, which was a standard survey/sweepstakes scam intended to lure visitors into signing up for various costly subscription offers. By now,most social media users are familiar withsurvey scams: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait by scammers(seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauillustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Starbucks did once give away a lifetime supply of free coffee to 14 people as part of their "Starbucks It's a Wonderful Card Ultimate Giveaway" promotion (the 10k hammered gold cards from which were used by the scammers for the picture displayed above), but that giveaway ended early in 2015. promotion   Last updated: 25 October 2015 Originally published: 25 October 2015 Republican Gov. Rick Perry frequently talks up the Texas economy, focusing in recent TV ads on the state's job gains since he took office almost 10 years ago. Texas added more than 850,000 new jobs, Perry says in a New Jobs spot that debuted online Oct. 13. More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth. For an article published Sept. 23, we put the 850,000 number to the Truth-O-Meter, rating itTrue. On Oct. 11, Katy Bacon, spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White, wrote us an e-mail suggesting that the jobs picture might have changed since our first pass, making the claim inaccurate. We put our pencils to her point, though in this article we'll be rating whether Perry's comparison of job gains to Fort Worth's population holds water. In an Oct. 19 news release about the New Jobs ad, the Perry campaign points to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on state employment to show the change in the number of nonfarm jobs in Texas between January 2001, shortly after Perry became governor, and June 2010. During that time, the state experienced a net gain of 853,400 jobs. Of course, Texas was also growing during that time; according to projections from the Texas State Data Center, the population increased by about 4 million people between 2001 and 2010. Texas, the second-largest state, is among the 20 states that had net job gains during the 9.5-year span from January 2001 to June 2010. Texas ranked No. 1, followed by Arizona (132,700 jobs) and Utah (113,200 jobs). Yet  as White's camp nudged  June's numbers are no longer the most recent. By July 2010, Texas' net job gain had dropped to 848,000. In August, it fell even further, to 818,500, although that month's job numbers were preliminary until Friday, after Perry's ad was released. The August information makes Perry's figure off by 31,500 jobs. Bottom line? Perry's statement that Texas added more than 850,000 jobs is correct when considering a particular time period (that he doesn't mention in the ad): between January 2001 and June 2010. By August, that statement was no longer accurate, but that information wasn't final until after Perry's ad came out. Next, how do the job gains compare with the population of Cowtown, the state's fifth-largest city? For its head count, the governor's team uses a population estimate from the City of Fort Worth's website: 736,200 people as of Jan. 1, 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimate  for July 1, 2009  is 727,577. We asked Ed Friedman, a director at Moody's Analytics who covers the Texas economy, about the validity of Perry's comparison of statewide job gains over time with Fort Worth's population in 2010. He called the comparison a reasonable way for Perry to give you an idea of the size of the gain. Either way, the Fort Worth comparison stands up because no matter which final month is chosen, the number of Texas jobs has gone up more than the population of Fort Worth. We rate Perry's statement as True. Claim:  Image shows an "Ode to the Welfare State" published in a 1949 newspaper. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] Imagine. (62) years ago someone saw it coming.Now we have (50) million on welfare   Origins:  On 3 November 1949, President Harry Truman appeared in St. Paul, Minnesota, in conjunction with that state's Truman Day Celebration, and that evening he delivered an address to local residents on the subject of opposition to Democratic efforts to promote the general welfare, stating (in part): address We know that there will be more prosperity for all if all groups have a fair share of the wealth of the country. We know that the country will achieve economic stability and progress only if the benefits of our production are widely distributed among all its citizens. We believe that it is the Federal Government's obligation, under the Constitution, to promote the general welfare of all our people  and not just a privileged few. The policies we advocate are based on these convictions. We maintain that farmers, like businessmen, should receive a fair price for the products they sell. We maintain that workers are entitled to good wages and to equality of bargaining power with their employers. We believe that cooperatives and small business should have a fair opportunity to achieve success, and should not be smothered by monopolies. We hold that our great natural resources should be protected and developed for the benefit of all our people, and not exploited for private greed. We believe that old people and the disabled should have an assured income to keep them from being dependent on charity. We believe that families should have protection against loss of income resulting from accident, illness, or unemployment. We hold that our citizens should have decent housing at prices they can afford to pay. We believe in assuring educational opportunities for all our young people in order that we may have an enlightened citizenry. We believe in better health and medical care for everyone  not for just a few. We hold that all Americans are entitled to equal rights and equal opportunities under the law, and to equal participation in our national life, free from fear and discrimination. Now, my friends, these are the policies that spell the progress for all our people. President Truman's remarks ostensibly prompted the New York Daily News to dub his address a "pie-for-everybody" speech and publish the following "Ode to a Welfare State" in response: Father, must I go to work?  No, my lucky sonWe're living on Easy Street  On dough from Washington  We've left it up to Uncle Sam,  So don't get exercisedNobody has to give a damn   We've all been subsidized  But if Sam treats us all so well  And feeds us milk and honeyPlease, daddy, tell me what the hell  He's going to use for money  Don't worry, bub, there's not a hitch  In this here noble plan He simply soaks the filthy rich  And helps the common man  But father, won't there come a time  When they run out of cashAnd we have left them not a dime  When things will go to smash?  My faith in you is shrinking, son,  You nosy little brat;You do too damn much thinking, son  To be a Democrat. As often happens with many popular political items even in today's era of the Internet, the "Ode to a Welfare State" poem gained currency in late 1949/early 1950 as it was republished in various newspapers across the country, sometimes as an editorial piece and sometimes through reader submission.  For example, it turned up in the Hagerstown, Maryland, Morning Herald on 20 December 1949:  As another example, the ode was submitted to the Los Angeles Times    Last updated:  9 February 2015