Did a Retired Postman Father Over 1,300 Illegitimate Children?
On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website  even those based on real people  areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites:   The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture
On 30 December 2018, News Punch, a junk news website with a long history of spreading misinformation, published an article reporting that 10,800 American children had been raped by illegal immigrants during 2018: "The number of U.S. children raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 was a staggering 10,800, according to data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement)." News Punch misinformation This claim has multiple dubious aspects, starting with the NCFIRE data. NCFIRE purports to compile "monthly child rape reports" covering sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants in North Carolina. Our inspection of their data, however, turned up a number of issues. For starters, while the data were compiled under the title "monthly child rape reports," the supporting documents actually included a variety of sex-related crimes, such as possession of child pornography and "indecent liberties with a child," that aren't rape. We also found one individual who was included in the 2018 report even though he raped a child in 2011. That person presumably was included in the 2018 report because of an arrest that year for failing to report an address change. report In addition to including outdated charges and crimes other than rape in the "monthly child rape reports," NCFIRE also appears to be counting arrests, not convictions. In other words, a number of individuals included in these reports have only been accused of crimes, and the charges against them may be dropped or found to be unsupported at trial. Furthermore, while some entries on this list link to genuine reports from ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the majority of entries include links to news reports or mugshot pages that make no mention of immigration status. Although this group claims that they "verify the illegal alien status of each individual we post in our Monthly Child Rape reports through the arresting agency of each individual," a spokesperson for the Raleigh Police Department told us that they "were not familiar" with NCFIRE.  Despite the multiple problems with the rape reporting, News Punch used these statistics to come up with their 10,800 figure: Meanwhile, data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement) reveals that the state of North Carolina has arrested an average of 18 illegal aliens every month this year for the crime of child rape. Statistically, this means that the 50 states in America are on track to arrest 10,800 illegal aliens for raping children in 2018. And that 10,800 figure is a bare-minimum, super-generous, giving-the-illegal-alien-child-rapists-the-benefit-of-the-doubt number. A total of 10,800 arrests assumes that each illegal alien child rapist only rapes one child in America. Many will rape three, four, or a dozen before they are caught, so the "true" number could be in the 30,000 to 40,000 raped children range. The claim that 10,800 children in the U.S. were raped by illegal immigrants did not originate with a law enforcement agency, government body, or other reputable crime-tracking source. Rather, an average figure pulled from questionable data compiled by one group in one state was extrapolated to the entirety of the U.S. without basis. That number also doesn't square with what we know about the criminal activities of illegal immigrants or the statistics for sexual abuse against children. Although the 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report does not specifically list crimes against children, it does shed some light on the number of sexual crimes committed by illegal immigrants. According to the ICE report, 5,350 charges or convictions of sexual assault were levied against illegal immigrants during the 2018 fiscal year. Another 6,888 charges or convictions relating to sexual offenses (not involving assault) were also recorded: Report Table 1 tallies all pending criminal charges and convictions by category for those aliens administratively arrested in FY2018 and lists those categories with at least 1,000 combined charges and convictions present in this population. These figures are representative of the criminal history as it is entered in the ICE system of record for individuals administratively arrested. Each administrative arrest may represent multiple criminal charges and convictions, as many of the aliens arrested by ERO are recidivist criminals.   The claim that 10,800 American children were raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 is also implausible due to the fact that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children are committed by parents or relatives, as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) reported in 2016: RAINN Out of the yearly 63,000 sexual abuse cases substantiated, or found [by] strong evidence, by Child Protective Services (CPS), the perpetrator was most often the parent: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  "ICE Arrests Fugitive Alien in NC Wanted on Multiple Maryland Rape Charges."
  18 October 2018.  Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.  "Child Sexual Abuse Is a Widespread Problem."
  Retrieved 9 January 2019. Adl-Tabatabai, Sean.  "10,800 U.S. Children Were Raped by Illegal Immigrants in 2018."
  News Punch.  30 December 2018. WRAL.  "Moore County Man Charged with Raping Child."
  1 January 2001. Updated [15 January 2019]: Added quote from Raleigh Police Department spokesperson. In June 2016, a message reporting that GOP candidate Donald Trump was planning on shutting down the Library of Congress as a cost-saving measure if elected president began circulating via Facebook:  Such messages linked to a story that was originally posted on The Retroset web site: As reported early this morning by CNN and HuffPost, Donald Trump, in a phone interview with Fox News Steve Doocy, claimed as President of the United States, he would seek to cut-out all unnecessary spending. When pressed for specifics, the GOP frontrunner dismissively quipped, Well, I think we spend way too much on organizations and departments that just save stuff. For instance, Id make a move to get rid of the Library of Congress. Trump continued, Yknow what? Old books, decomposing newspapers, pansy artwork and a bunch of black and white movies about women and illegal immigrants have no business being protected with our hard-earned tax dollars. My first act as President would be to dissolve wasteful branches of government like the Library and that Kennedy Center for Peforming Arts stuff, and sell the material to China for huge profits. The publication date of the Retroset article wasn't obvious to those who encountered it via Facebook, but readers who clicked through to the original discovered that it appeared on 1 April 2016, otherwise known as April Fool's Day. original The Retroset didn't specifically state that the article was a springtime ruse, but the text incorporated several clues to its fictional nature. For instance, while The Retroset reported that CNN and the Huffington Post had both reported on Trump's plan to shutter the Library of Congress, the embedded links they provided led to irrelevant articles on those sites. In May 2021, numerous media outlets reported that U.S. President Joe Bidens administration would be waiving sanctions on vessels, corporate entities and the CEO of Nord Stream AG, an international consortium of five major companies overseeing the construction of Russias Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany. However, the administration still expressed opposition to the construction of the pipeline. The claim was originally reported by the news website Axios on May 20, 2021. In the original report, the publication cited two sources who had been briefed on the decision. Axios Snopes contacted the State Department and was told the agency had submitted a report to Congress on May 19 saying the U.S. was lifting sanctions on five entities, four vessels, and Nord Stream 2 AG CEO Matthias Warnig. Unknown at the time of this writing was which specific entities would be waived. These sanctions were currently required under the Protecting Europes Energy Security Act (PEESA).  PEESA Nord Stream 2 is a wide pipeline network of offshore natural gas lines that run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. The pipelines have largely been opposed by the U.S. and some European nations that believe their creation would increase Russias influence in the region. Under PEESA, the U.S. is granted the authority to advance national security and foreign policy objectives, in particular, to address Russian pipeline projects that use coercive purposes and create risks to U.S. national security, threaten Europes energy security, and that could endanger Europes political and economic welfare. Nord Stream 2 PEESA  Map of the proposed Nord Stream 2. Samuel Bailey/Public Domain  Samuel Bailey/Public Domain   Russia uses its energy export pipelines to create national and regional dependencies on Russian energy supplies, leveraging these dependencies to expand its political, economic, and military influence, weaken European security, and undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, wrote the Bureau of Energy Resources in an April 9 statement. These pipelines also reduce European energy diversification, and hence weaken European energy security. statement A spokesperson for the State Department referred our team to this statement written by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on May 19, 2021. this statement I have determined that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO Matthias Warnig, and Nord Stream 2 AGs corporate officers, wrote Blinken. Todays actions demonstrate the Administrations commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the Presidents pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe. While the Biden administration supported waiving sanctions on some elements associated with Nord Stream AG, the administration maintained its opposition to construction of Nord Stream 2  and that seemed at odds with statements made by Blinken during his Jan. 19 nomination hearing, when he said the administration would do whatever we can to prevent that completion of Nord Stream 2. Jan. 19 nomination hearing, Sanctions are placed on companies that the U.S. determines meet certain criteria/specifications that suggest a danger to national security. The State Department, in conjunction with the Biden administration, can also determine when they want to waive  or temporarily pause the application of  such sanctions. Blinken said that the administration would continue to oppose the completion of the project that it acknowledged would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine, the Eastern flank NATO, and EU countries. However, the sanctions that were waived  not lifted, as some media reports claimed  allowed for the continuation of various transactions and activities involving the Marine Rescue Service, which are unrelated to Nord Stream 2 construction. These activities include a range of search and rescue, environmental, and other missions. Issuance of this waiver also provides space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security, an official with the State Department told Snopes in an interview. In the statement sent to Snopes, Blinken reiterated that the administration would continue to oppose completion of the project. Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering, Blinken continued. Though we may not always agree, our alliances remain strong, and our position is in line with our commitment to strengthen our Transatlantic relationships as a matter of national security. Claim:  Former New York mayor Ed Koch delivered a radio address on anti-semitism.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.  Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.  Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.  Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.  In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.  Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.  I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPRs reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.  I will no longer lend financial support to New Yorks Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.  I will not watch ABCs World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.  BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.  Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.  Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.  I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish. Origins:  Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989,   mayor  was a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio until his death in 2013.  On 7 December 2002, he delivered a commentary dealing with his perception that western society is experiencing its most"virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin" and offered a list of new year's resolutions regarding people and institutions he would shun for being anti-Israel.  Transcripts of that commentary (reproduced above) have since been posted to a variety of web sites. Bloomberg Radio Just to be sure this information was accurate, we contacted Bloomberg Radio for verification and received an affirmative response: Hello and thank you for your inquiry. Former Mayor Ed Koch is a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio.  On 7 December 2002, Mr. Koch delivered a commentary on our "Bloomberg On the Weekend" broadcast in which he postulated a growing anti-semitism in America and elsewhere in the western world.  He asserted that public broadcasting  had an anti-Israeli attitude and declared he would no longer contribute.  I hope this answers your question, and I invite you to listen to us each weekend for Ed Koch and much more.   If you are in the greater New York area you will find us on Bloomberg Radio, WBBR, 1130 on your AM radio dial. Elsewhere we can be heard on the internet at http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio. http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio Sincerely,Wes Richards, Host. Last updated:  6 January 2014 A handout urging voter support for aproposed $1.05 billion Austin school district bond issueon the November 2017 ballot singles out the need to repair and renovate schools averaging 40 years of age plus a desire to modernize or build 16 schools. Moreover, the handout from the Committee of Austins Children PAC says: Did you know? AISD Prop. 1 bonds will require no tax rate increase, a claim the group also makes onits website. Is that rate statement accurate? To rehash, the handout saysthe sought bondswont require a rate increase. Its silent on whether district residents will pay more in taxes if the proposition passes--which struck Austin lawyer Bill Aleshire, formerly Travis Countys elected judge, as misleading. Aleshire, who brought the handout to our attention, said by email: No one in their right mind should believe AISD can borrow $1 billion plus interest and not have a property tax increase as a result. When we asked, David Butts, a consultant to the PAC, told us by phone the group based its rate claim on district presentations. Butts said: Weve never said that you wouldnt pay higher taxes, in that barring an economic recession, escalating local property values stand to drive up how much the district reaps--without the district needing a rate bump. Property taxes are tied to assessed property values which in Austin (like other prosperous cities) lately spiral nearly every year. In this fact-check, well share assumptions behind the no-hike scenario and unpack estimates of how much money the proposed bonds would likely cost homeowners in increased tax bills. Its also worth noting the speculative quality of tax predictions. To our inquiry, Roger Falk of theTravis County Taxpayers Union, which opposes the proposition, questioned anyones ability to fact-check rate-related claims because, he said by phone, tax effects depend on unknowns including whether and how much total appraised property values change and if the districts intended debt repayment schedules and interest rates bear out. You cannot assume its a sunny day every day, Falk said. Its going to rain sometime. Austin districts assumptions District leaders have said that presuming total assessed property values continue to increase and also that the district repays more than half the proposed debt within a decade, the school board will be spared from considering an increase in the districts total tax rate of $1.192 per $100 valuation--the bulk of which covers day-to-day maintenance and operations. A September 2017Austin American-Statesmannews storyelaborated: The district points to its last bond election $392 million approved by voters in 2013 as an example of how it can tamp down the impact on property tax bills. Those bonds were expected to raise the tax rate by 3 cents, or about $38.40 a year to the property tax bill for a $200,000 home. But instead, the story said, the district, buoyed by increasing property values, lowered the tax rate by 5 cents per $100 of a homes assessed value. Homeowners are still paying more, of course, because property values in Austin have shot up 12 percent a year, on average, for the past five years. Tiffany Young, a district spokeswoman, emailed us the districts August 2017tax capacity analysisof the proposed bond costs, which included a summary of annual changes--of late 11-percent-plus annual increases--in total assessed property valuations in the district from 2008 through 2017:           SOURCE:Document showing tax capacity analysis of proposed bond debt, Austin Independent School District, Aug. 10, 2017 (received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, Sept. 26, 2017) That news story noted that the districts payback plan for the proposed bond package assumes an annual increase in total assessed property values of 7 percent in the first two years and 1.5 percent for each subsequent year. Property values actually have a 10-year average growth rate of nearly 8 percent, the story said. School leaders advised that if theres a flattening in property-value increases, the district could tap $46 million in reserves, or savings, to make up for lost revenue. Also, the story quoted Ellen Wood, who chairs the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerces board of directors, calling district assumptions behind no tax-rate hike prediction conservative and appropriate. By phone, Wood told us chamber members based that judgment on talks with the districts chief financial officer, Nicole Conley Johnson, and a firm advising the district on the proposed issuance. To our inquiries, Conley Johnson reaffirmed the districts conclusion that the proposed bonds can be paid off without a tax-rate hike. In fact, Conley Johnson said by phone, she expects the district to land interest rates perhaps 2 percentage points less than the 5 percent rate assumed in its modeling, a decrease that would reduce repayment costs. Noting increased assessed property valuations in recent years, Conley Johnson also said its reasonable to expect assessed values to surge more each year than the 1.5 percent rate assumed in the modeling past the first couple years. If the proposition fails at the polls, Conley Johnson confirmed,the school board could reduce the debt portionof the district tax rate in 2021-22 by $0.0297 per $100 valuation to $0.0833 with additional reductions doable most subsequent years through 2039-40--though that scenario depends, perhaps improbably, on no additional costs accumulating in the intervening years. If the proposition passes, Conley Johnson said, in 2022, the district will need some $35.5 million to pay incremental costs on the proposed bonds. An estimated $35.5 million would be raised by from that $0.0297 per $100 valuation in tax rate, the district projects. Worst-case scenarios? We separately asked Conley Johnson andChris Allenof First Southwest, the firm hired by the district as financial advisers on the proposition, to lay out a worst-case scenario that might cause district officials to recommend a rate increase after all. Youd have to have a major economic downturn, Allen said by phone. Youd have to have the housing market plummet. Allen, referring to the districts assumed 7 percent increases in total assessed valuations in both 2019 and 2020, said: I think the 7 percent is conservative. If you look around, there are cranes everywhere. The housing and commercial market is on fire. Conley Johnson said by email: We estimate that if total assessed valuation growth stayed flat for the next 8 years or there was a cumulative decline in AV of 20%, we would need to consider increasing the tax rate. Of course. she said, these events would buck historical trends of the last 10 years where there was only year that AV declined, in 2011 due to the national recession--arguably the worst in history. Even still, there was subsequent growth thereafter and the decline was made-up after two years and growth doubled after that. Falk, the proposition foe, questioned the assumption that the district can repay the bonds at a 5 percent interest rate past this next year. Theres no science--no way to know--past one year, Falk said. Falk called the assumed annual increases in total property valuations a best guess. We also askedCharles Gilliland, a land-market expert at Texas A&M University, to evaluate the no-rate-increase claim. Gilliland said by phone the districts post-2020 assumption that total assessed property values will increase 1.5 percent annually seems pretty conservative. The rest of the story is its not going to be a nice steady increase, Gilliland said. There are going to be ups and downs. Generally, Gilliland said by email: Without exhaustive historical studies of the parameters of their model and an examination of the operating conditions of the district, I have no evidence to cast doubt on the assumptions underlying the districts analysis. Costs to taxpayers Falk called the tax-rate claim by itself a head fake intended to dupe voters into overlooking that each taxpayer would be paying more dollars to cover bond repayments. He also emailed us thetaxpayer groups analysis, which provides estimated effects on property tax bills by assuming that  total assessed valuations within district boundaries wont go up or down. Then again, the district has acknowledged that property owners will pay more in taxes to pay debt service on the bonds, if approved. A June 2017American-Statesmannews storyon school board members voting to place the proposition before voters initially noted that district officials said the tax rate would remain flat at $1.192 per $100 of assessed property value, with $1.079 designated for operations and $0.113 of the rate going toward repaying debt issued to fund capital improvements. Still: For the owner of the districts average taxable value home of $355,947, the school tax bills would total nearly $4,243. As properties increase in value, the story said, that same tax rate would lead to increasingly higher tax bills. District web pages devoted to the proposition similarly indicate property owners will likely face increases in what the district bills. We initially spotted no estimates of how much more, but estimates were provided when we asked. Lets cover those web posts, then turn to what the district gave us. Heres a question on the districts main FAQ section about the proposition: I've heard AISD say this bond will not raise my property tax rate. How is that possible? The 202-word reply stresses the districts plan not to issue the sought debt all at once plus plans to draw on other funds; it doesnt concede additional direct-to-taxpayer bond costs. We saw this question on a separate districtFinance FAQ web pageabout the proposition: So does this mean that I wont have an increase in my tax bill? The districts reply opens, No. That reply otherwise says higher taxes depend on the appraised value of taxable property, which is determined by the Travis Central Appraisal District, not AISD. An increase or decrease in taxable property value, even with no change in the tax rate, would result in an increase or decrease in the actual amount of taxes paid. The reply goes on to note that residents who qualify for Travis Countys over-65 homestead exemption wouldnt pay more in school taxes. Moreover, the reply continues, other governing entities levy property taxes including the city of Austin, Travis County, the Austin Community College District and the Travis County Health Care District. The rates for each entity are set annually by the elected or governing officials, the district says. The rate for each of the taxing entities is then applied to your home value, it says. We also noticed the last, 18th question on the districts main FAQ page for the proposition: What's the bottom line, the one thing you want voters to know? The districts reply: AISD needs to address facility deficiencies and is committed to creating 21st-century learning spaces for our students. We can do so without a tax rate increase. Conley Johnson told us that in 2021-22 (the third year of the district starting to sell and repay the bond debt being presented to voters), the cost to taxpayers of the new debt would range from $29.70 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $100,000 up to $297 for the owner of a property with an assessed value of $1 million.See the districts full chart here. According to what Conley Johnson described as the districts worst-case modeling of the proposed bonds effect on taxes, the owner of an Austin homestead at theaverage 2017-18 assessed value($332,103) would see the debt portion of her or his district tax bill increase from $375 in 2017-18 to $484 in 2027-28--driven by expected bumps in assessed property values. Absent the sought bonds or other approved debt, this modeling indicates, the 2027-28 costs to such a homeowner for district debt would total $250.57. An owner of a homestead at the 2017-18median value($262,282) would face $382.75 in district debt-tied taxes in 2027-28--up from $296 in 2017-18 and greater than the $197.89 in such taxes the homeowner would face if the district doesnt issue additional debt. Theres more: As we made our inquiries, the district posted adocumentestimating each homesteading homeowners future tax payments to the district related to paying off the proposed bonds. Upshot: Starting in 2022, some $0.0297 per $100 valuation of the districts tax rate would generate sufficient revenue to pay debt service on the sought bonds, the document says. The share of the districts tax rate needed to pay that debt service will escalate in subsequent years, the document says, with that share reaching its maximum of $0.0530 per $100 valuation as of 2029. According to the document, the district estimates the dollar costs in annual taxes on the median-value homestead in the district--which in 2017 had an appraised value of $287,282--to be $77.90 in 2022 and $139.01 in 2029. At the upper end, the estimated annual dollar costs due to debt service on the proposed bonds to a homestead appraised at $1 million in 2017 is shown as $289.58 in 2022, $516.75 in 2029. Our ruling The PAC said the proposed Austin school district bonds will require no tax rate increase. Missing from this claim: Individual homeowners are expected to pay more in property taxes even if the tax rate remains the same, which looks likely thanks to rising property valuations in a hot real-estate market. We rate this statement, which lacks the important clarification that only the tax rate isnt expected to rise, Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUEThe statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In December 2023, multiple online advertisements were displayed to users, including possibly on YouTube, that showed one or more photos of Chick-fil-A restaurant locations with the claim that the company would be closing down in 2024. The caption for one of the ads read, "They're Closing Doors in 2024. These Fast Food Restaurant Chains Are Closing The Doors In 2024."  Another ad with a picture of a Chick-fil-A restaurant read, "Restaurant Chains Closing. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Restaurants Be Closing The Doors."  We found several other variations of similar ads that made the same claim about Chick-fil-A's supposed future plans. Some of the ads said said the company would be closing up shop in 2023.  All of these ads were false. It was not true that Chick-fil-A was going to be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. An April 2023 report from QSR Magazine detailed the chicken sandwich company's strong financial earnings. QSR Magazine All of the ads led to a lengthy article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." In the article's page source code, we noted that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed nearly 70 businesses, most of which appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. Nowhere in the nearly 70-slide article was Chick-fil-A mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Chick-fil-A restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to entice readers to scroll or click through the slides, all for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Chick-fil-A's media relations team by email to ask if it had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Klein, Danny. Chick-Fil-A Nearing $19 Billion in Sales.QSR Magazine, 6 Apr. 2023, https://www.qsrmagazine.com/growth/finance/chick-fil-nearing-19-billion-sales/. Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 In August 2020, readers asked us to examine the accuracy of claims that before he took office, U.S. President Donald Trump had made donations to a previous election campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., whom presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden named as his vice-presidential running mate.  Shortly after Biden named Harris as his running mate on Aug. 11, the president's reelection campaign denounced her as "phony Kamala," claiming she was willing to "abandon her own morals, as well as try to bury her record as a prosecutor, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling the Democrat party." named denounced In an email sent to supporters, the Trump campaign also labeled Harris "a corrupt former California Attorney General":   Paul Begala, a former advisor to former President Bill Clinton, alluded to a degree of irony in this allegation, claiming in a tweet that "Trump donated to Kamala Harris when she was [attorney general]." claiming In widely shared tweets, NBC News correspondent Tom Winter claimed that Trump had twice contributed to Harris' election campaign, in 2011 and 2013, donating a total of $6,000. Winter also said that Trump's daughter and advisor Ivanka Trump had herself donated $2,000 to Harris' campaign in 2014: claimed   Those claims were accurate. Records available through the campaign finance database on the website of the California secretary of state show that Trump made two contributions to Harris' 2014 campaign for reelection as California attorney general: a $5,000 donation on Sep. 26, 2011, and a $1,000 donation on Feb. 20, 2013. Harris first took office in January 2011, which means Trump contributed to her reelection when she had already been in office for eight months, and two years, respectively.  database In March 2019, The Sacramento Bee reported that a spokesperson for Harris' presidential primary campaign had said she "donated the $6,000 Trump had contributed to a non-profit that advocates for civil and human rights for Central Americans," with the newspaper adding that Harris' donation of the money took place in 2015.  reported We contacted spokespeople for both Harris and Biden, requesting further details about that claim, including the name of the charity in question, and the date on which Harris purportedly donated $6,000 to the charity. We did not receive a response in time for publication. The campaign finance database also reveals that the future president made several other campaign contributions in California, to both Republicans and Democrats. He donated $2,500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who was ultimately elected to that office in 2019; he gave a total of $3,500 to Democrat Jerry Brown's successful 2006 bid to become California attorney general; he donated a total of $12,000 to committees supportive of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and gave $25,000 to the state's Republican party, in 2005.   The database also corroborates Winter's claim that in June 2014, Ivanka Trump  adviser to, and daughter of, the president  herself made a $2,000 donation to Harris' successful campaign to be reelected as the state's attorney general. She also contributed $500 to the unsuccessful 2010 gubernatorial campaign of Newsom:   Ronayne, Kathleen; Weissert, Will. "Biden Picks Kamala Harris as Running Mate, First Black Woman."
 The Associated Press. 11 August 2020. Cadei, Emily. "Big-Dollar Donors, Including Donald Trump, Fueled Kamala Harris' Political Rise in California."
 The Sacramento Bee. 4 March 2019. Donald Trump thepolitician was a relatively newpersonality in 2016, as many people had already known him for years asa real estate mogul and reality televisionstar. His longtime presence in American pop culture made him an especially rich source of urban legends, misinformation, and memes. In February 2016, the above-reproduced an image-based rumor claimed that Trump's Las Vegas hotel lacked a casino because the Nevada Gaming Commission had deemed Trump not "trustworthy" enough to qualify for one:  We located one possible source for the claim in a 23 February 1987New York Timesarticle.According to piece, which was nearly 30 years old, Trump had difficulty in the 1980s withattempts to expand his empire west: article Last September Mr. Trump bought a 4.9 percent stake in the Holiday Corporation, which operates casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada. He sold the stake at a $35 million profit in November and bought into Bally. Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any ''greenmailer'' who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium. Mr. Trump's sale of the Holiday shares was on the open market, after takeover rumors boosted the market price. In court papers filed for the Camden hearing, Mr. Trump's lawyers denied that their client had invested in Bally for the purpose of selling to the company at a premium. ''Mr. Trump has never been, and is not presently, a greenmailer or corporate raider,'' his counterclaim said. Seventeen years later, Trump's activity in Vegas again made headlines. A February2004Las Vegas Review-Journalarticleincluded information about the Nevada Gaming Commission's view of Trump at the time: article Trump and his companies, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. and the THCR Holding Corp., were required to be licensed by gaming regulators in Nevada after he purchased 358,000 shares of Riviera parent Riviera Holdings Corp. The purchase, made [in or around early 2003], put [Trump]over a threshold requiring investigation and licensure by Nevada gaming regulators. Trump and the other officers of his companies will appear at the Gaming Commission meeting in the capital on Feb. 19 for final approval. Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said the investigations of Trump and his executive team gave the board no need to ask any personal questions at the hearing. He called the applications "very clean" and said he was impressed with the backgrounds of some of Trump's personnel. Members of the control board asked Trump and his executives about problems with minors gaining entry to his New Jersey properties, but Chief Operating Officer Mark Brown said the company is making every effort to control the problem. Trump has talked for years about moving into the Las Vegas casino industry, but his expected licensing by the end of the month will make it much easier to put deals together. Laterthat month,the Associated Press reported that Trump was approved by Nevada state regulators to hold a stake in the Riviera hotel and casino: reported The Gaming Commission approved Trump and companies that he controls as part of a registration and suitability-finding process that would speed up any actual casino licensing in the future. Repeating his Feb. 4 comments to the commission's investigative arm, the Gaming Control Board, Trump said "it's an honor to be here." He said he had lost many deals in previous years because of a state licensing process that can take more than a year. Trump paid about $2 million for shares in Riviera Holdings Corp. That put him barely over a 10 percent threshold subjecting investors to investigation and licensure by casino regulators ...The move was designed to start the state licensing process, Trump said, adding that he has little contact with Riviera executives and doesn't intend to expand on his involvement with the property. Asked about his building plans, Trump said he favors a project such as his Trump towers in Manhattan, Chicago and elsewhere. There's "not a great chance" that it would include New Frontier owner Phil Ruffin of Las Vegas, he added. Trump's television career and presidential bid probablydisrupted any potential ventures in Nevada between 2004 and 2016, but on 25 February 2016, anarticlein theWall Street Journalspeculated thatTrumpwasrevisitingpossibilities in Vegas: article Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin said in an interview this week that he is hoping to build a casino with Mr. Trump next to the luxury high-rise Trump Hotel, which the two co-own on the Strip. He said the plans are still very preliminary, but he expects to accelerate them this year, and the Trump Organization would be a 50% owner. There are still no architectural renderings, land surveys or other concrete proposals, he added... [Son Eric]Trump said in an interview that various possible expansion plans have been discussed, including the casino and a new convention space. Nothing has been solidified, he said, adding that the family is focused on other matters including the elder Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and developing hotels elsewhere. The proposed casino would be on a four-acre parcel next to the Trump Hotel, which Mr. Ruffin and Donald Trump opened in 2008 on land that Mr. Ruffin owned. The site is currently a parking lot for the hotel; Mr. Ruffin said the casino would be connected to the existing hotel ...Mr. Ruffin said that he is now contemplating a $100 million casino, with the Trumps as 50% partners. ...Mr. Ruffin said it is unclear if Mr. Trump or his family members would need to undergo the rigorous process of securing a license from the Nevada Gaming Control Board ...Mr. Trump owned casinos in Atlantic City for decades but never had any gambling interests in Nevada. We were unable to locate any information to substantiate the claim that Trump was ever denied a gaming license or that his Las Vegas hotel was originally planned as a casino. It was true Trump engaged in legal battles in the 1980s aroundbuying casino stock. But in 2004, Trump was approved for the initial stages of casino-based development, and there was no indication he was everdeclined a Nevada Gaming Commission license based on whether he was "trustworthy." On 2 March 2016, the Nevada Gaming Commission replied to our inquiry, stating that "Donald Trump was licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission in February 2004."