Did Pat Robertson Say 'Staring' at Melania Trump 'Can Heal Gays'?
On 17February2017, the Newslo web sitepublished an articlereporting that televangelist Pat Robertson had said "staring" at First Lady Melania Trump was an activity sufficient to "cure gays": Newslo article When Christian Conservative leader Pat Robertson discussed the RNC convention in his TV show The 700 Club last July, he managed once again to turn the topic to controversy surrounding Melania Trumps speech. Robertson had agreed with many people when he said, Trumps speechwriter should be fired for doing  or borrowing a few lines from Mrs. Obama. But then the televangelist got creepy when he started discussing Mrs. Trumps appearance, when he said, We mentioned the language in that speech, although she was absolutely gorgeous and I think thats why they wanted to put her on. She had a beautiful dress and shes a lovely lady. Trump knows when hes got a winner. Lately, hes been at it again. On the most recent episode of his show, the televangelist argued that the sole reason the mainstream media is targeting President Donald Trump is, once again, his wife. Robertson opined that the beauty of First Lady Melania Trump is so incredible that just by staring at her for a period of time, one can rid themselves of the plague of homosexualism. You know how there used to be this urban myth that men can prolong their natural lives just by staring at naked female breasts for 10 minutes a day? Well, this is sort of something similar to that, with one crucial difference: its not an urban myth, Robertson said. Shes an actual gay whisperer, that one. female breasts Newslo(along with sister sitesReligionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo)typically combine a tiny grain of truth with a balance of lies, as was the case in the above-quoted material. Newslo's trio offake news sites include a buttonallowingreaders toshow facts or hide facts," but since by default all their content displays in hide facts mode, most visitors are not aware ofthe fictional embellishments they add: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo fake news  In this case, Pat Robertson's remarks about Mrs. Trump's being a "lovely lady" were genuinely something he said on CBNon 16 July 2016, but the balance of the Newslo article was fabricated, and Robertson never referred to Mrs. Trump as an "actual gay whisperer." Robertson is a frequent target ofNewslo and its brethren, where segments from the700 Club are regularly embellished to create share-worthy fabrications. remarks target
New Jersey often ranks high on lists in categories ranging from beach quality to education.Unfortunately, according to Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, the state tops another list  one with a particularly dubious ranking.New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation and not by a little, Greenwald (D-Camden) said in an April 1 interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record. They are the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average.New Jersey having high property taxes isnt new. But are they more than double the national average? Greenwalds statement is largely on the money, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Lets first explain the source of Greenwalds data and how tax rankings are reviewed.Greenwald got his data from a 2009 list compiled by the business-backed Tax Foundation in Washington, DC. The 2009 data shows that New Jersey ranked number one in three key tax metrics: median property taxes paid on homes; taxes as a percentage of home value; and taxes as a percentage of income.Nick Kasprak, a Tax Foundation analyst and programmer, said taxes as a percentage of home value is the most relevant statistic of the three because it can apply to most people, ranging from those who own condominiums to those in McMansions.Its a good way of comparing apples to apples across the states, Kasprak said of the metric, adding that the Tax Foundations numbers are estimates and come from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey.So how long has New Jersey worn the highest property taxes banner?That depends on the metric. We found that New Jersey property taxes have topped the rest of the nations at least back to 2004 when looking at median property taxes paid on homes and taxes paid as a percentage of income.When looking at all three Tax Foundation metrics for years 2004 through 2009, New Jerseys median property taxes paid on homes was more than triple the national average; more than double the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of income; and at least one and-a-half times the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of home value.Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said comparing states by property taxes alone is disingenuous because states fund certain needs differently. For example, some states use property taxes to fund education, others do not.In reality, we need to look in total at the entire tax burden, Harrison said. The implication is that New Jerseyans pay the highest taxes in the country, right? Thats what people think. What Im saying is that New Jersey pays a very high tax burden. What we need to do is look at the total tax burden: gas tax, sales tax, security, user fees, certainly property taxes and sales taxes as well.Jon Bramnick, leader of the Assembly Republicans, agreed property taxes are high but credited a slowing of their growth to Gov. Chris Christies implementation of a 2-percent property tax cap, changing arbitration procedures for police and firefighters, and other measures.We obviously have to have mergers, shared services and consolidations across New Jersey, Bramnick said, adding that a bipartisan effort is key. These are the factors that you have to have to continue down that road. If you do, you will see a slowing of property taxes.Our rulingGreenwald said in a TV interview that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average. He was referring to 2009 statistics from the Tax Foundation. Statistics from 2004 through 2008 show the state leads the nation in two of three key metrics, according to the Tax Foundation. New Jersey led in all three metrics in 2009. Greenwalds overall point is clear: when it comes to property taxes, New Jersey is king. We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. In October and November 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of social media posts that claimed that the Build Back Better Act, a major budget and infrastructure bill, contained a "methane tax" of around $2,600 per head of cattle, and around $500 per swine, per year.  For example, one widely-shared Facebook post claimed: widely-shared Facebook post "Were you aware the $3.5 Trillion Human Infrastructure package includes an animal agriculture tax of $2,600!! per head of cattle? $500 for swine!!!..." The post contained a photograph of a column written by U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma. In the column, which was also posted to his website on Sep. 22, Mullin claimed that: posted to his website on Sep. 22 In an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, this legislation [the Build Back Better Act] would impose a fee on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry. We all know that a fee is just a tax and that consumers are the ones who will pay for it. The tax is estimated to cost $6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine each year. That is more than what the animals are worth, itll run ranchers out of business.    Mullin's description of the provisions of the bill was inaccurate, as were the numerous social media posts based on it. At the time those claims were made, and as of Nov. 2, 2021, the Build Back Better Act did not contain a tax or fee on methane that would equate to thousands of dollars per head of cattle, or hundreds of dollars per head of swine. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, is a 2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill, and has been the subject of intensive negotiations during the fall of 2021. Section 30114 of the legislation provides for a "methane fee," but it applies only to "petroleum and natural gas systems," and not the agriculture sector. Therefore, Mullin's claim  that "this legislation would impose a 'fee' on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry"  is false.  2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill A spokesperson for Mullin told Politifact that the congressman was referring to an amendment to the bill, proposed by Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would have explicitly stipulated that the methane fee does not apply to agriculture. Democrats voted down that proposal, on the basis that the text of the legislation already explicitly stipulated that the fee related only to oil and gas production.  told Politifact amendment While expressing concern about hypothetical future actions on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the spokesperson effectively acknowledged that the Build Back Better Act does not currently do what Mullin claimed it did: "While the language specifies the oil and gas industry, it also references EPAs greenhouse gas inventory and leaves too much room for the EPA to expand its regulatory reach." The same spokesperson also told Politifact that the key figures from Mullin's op-ed  "$6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine"  came from an analysis prepared by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). However, the AFBF later issued its own news release, clarifying that the analysis was conducted in order to address an entirely hypothetical question, namely what the effect of a methane tax would be if it were applied to the agriculture industry  a proposal that no participants in Congressional negotiations have so far made.  In that Sept. 30 news release, AFBF Vice President Sam Kieffer said: Sept. 30 news release Over the summer, American Farm Bureau economists conducted an analysis, at the request of Congressional committee staff, to determine the potential impact if agriculture were to be included in legislation imposing such a tax. We did so based on the formula set forth in legislative proposals that impose a methane tax on the oil and gas sectors.  ...While we oppose any tax on methane, Farm Bureau is grateful to lawmakers for recognizing the thin margins in agriculture and that such a tax would undoubtedly put family farms out of business. We are especially grateful to the Senate for passing an amendment that specifically exempts agriculture. That Senate amendment was one proposed by U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10. It prohibited "the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock." passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10 Urging Texans to find out how public schools are spending their money, Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative-leaning Empower Texans, which advocates for limited government, suggests that maybe too many non-teachers are soaking up taxpayer dollars that could be spent on classroom instruction. Everyone says public schools in Texas are underfunded, but are they? Sullivan says in the May 14 Web video, pointing out that more than half of the public school system's funding is spent on expenses outside the classroom. You might say there's a little overhead. There are 321,092 public school teachers in Texas. There are 313,850 non-teachers in our public schools, he continues. Do we really need one non-teacher for every teacher on the public school payroll? We're not weighing in on the value of non-teachers in the schools, but we wondered if Sullivan got his ratio right. He pointed us to the Texas Education Agency website, which has annual snapshots of public education in Texas both statewide and by district. The reports cover 90 statistics including student demographics, average college admission test scores and how many people each district employs broken down by job type. According to the most recent snapshot, 634,942 full-time employees worked in the public education system (not including charter schools) in 2008-09. Of those, 321,092 were full-time teachers and 313,850 staff members held other jobs. Who are all these non-teachers? According to the snapshot, teachers accounted for 51 percent of the schools' workforce in 2008-09. Auxiliary staff  such as security, public information officers and grant writers, according to TEA  were the next biggest grouping, 28 percent, followed by educational, at 10 percent, professional support staff, 8 percent, and administrative staff, 4 percent. This adds to more than 100 percent, the agency said, because some full-time employees divide time between positions. Sullivan said Empower Texans isn't suggesting that all 'non-teachers' are bad  clearly many are needed, but that the one-to-one teacher to non-teacher ratio seems a bit high. In the Web ad, Sullivan sounds a critical note, saying: Hey, we've got bureaucrats to pay. If you think our classrooms are underfunded  and they probably are  the money should be pretty easy to find. Just walk down to your nearest administrative complex. There's a counterpoint. Debbie Ratcliffe, the TEA's communications director, said: It takes a village to run a school district. There naturally are going to be a lot of people on school payrolls that aren't teachers, Ratcliffe said. Just think of the number of bus drivers and custodians and all those kinds of folks. Could you make a school run without them? Yeah, but it sure is a lot harder. Ratcliffe shared a more recent standard report that breaks down the full-time school employees for 2009-10 in detail. As of March 2010, the report says, statewide school district personnel totaled 661,285. Teachers made up about half of that, accounting for 333,090 full-time staff. Almost all the employees that fall under teaching staff are pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. About 400 are labeled not applicable, which Ratcliffe said includes tutors and study hall monitors. The 2010 count puts the number of administrative staff at 25,525, or 3.9 percent of all workers. So who are the other 302,670 employees  the bulk of the non-teachers in Sullivan's claim? About 5,136 are librarians, 11,082 are counselors, 5,916 are nurses and 3,924 are speech therapists, among others. Some 178,140 are classified as auxiliary staff, a category that includes security personnel, public information officers and grant writers. How does Texas stack up nationally? On par, according to the the National Center for Education Statistics' most recent data. In 2007, teachers accounted for 51 percent of all elementary and secondary public school employees. In 20 states, teachers accounted for less than 50 percent of total staff, including Virgina (35 percent). In 30 states, teachers made up 50 percent or more of all staff, including South Carolina (72 percent). According to another report, released in November, instructional aides accounted for about 12 percent of all full-time public school staff nationwide, instructional coordinators and supervisors made up 1 percent, guidance counselors (2 percent), librarians (1 percent), student and support staff (23 percent), school administrators (3 percent), school district administrators (1 percent) and administrative support staff (7 percent). Where does all this leave Sullivan's statement? He correctly cites the number of teachers and non-teachers, per the education agency's latest snapshot report. More recent data available from the agency shows both have increased; still, the ratio of teachers to non-teachers is about the same. But Sullivan's online call to action doesn't do justice to the state's actual mix of school workers. The majority of non-teachers aren't administrators or paper shufflers; they're people who work directly with students including counselors, librarians, therapists and bus drivers. We rate Sullivan's statement as Mostly True. This story was updated to correct the total number of public school employees to 634,942. As the 2018 campaign comes to a close, the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund has sent a mailer to homes in Texas 7th Congressional District saying that John Culberson, a Republican congressman, is wrong for Houston. As partial proof, it said he was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught is an interesting word, since the nine-term incumbent, now challenged by Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, disclosed the memorabilia purchases, which he says he gave as gifts from his campaign. As for the fossils, his campaign insisted there were no such purchases -- and said it only bought books and maps from a business that happens to also sell fossils. Critics have made a false assumption, the Culberson campaign told us initially. Well look at both parts of the claim but will give away a bit of what we found right here: He bought fossil replicas. If you wonder why an environment group would care about fossils and Culberson, the group noted that Culberson said in late summer that his purchases were for research into such things as paleoclimatology, or the study of climates before instrumental records were widely available, to help him better understand climate change. Environmental Defense Fund Action says that for all this studying, Culberson still refuses to accept scientific research on the matter. Culberson has said humans played a role in climate change but, ashe toldthe Los Angeles Times in 2015,  We just dont have enough data or accurate data to say with certainty what that effect has been. Lets take fossils first. The congressmans critics based their claim on a mention in a 2012 campaign finance report that Culbersons campaign made two purchases from a South Dakota organization, the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research. The institute sells fossils, replicas and other things, and Culberson spent $309.66 altogether there, Federal Election Commission records show. The purchase was part of a broader set of Culberson expenses being questioned by Texas Democrats -- a set of questions we are not addressing fully here because we are looking specifically at campaign ads and claims. But for a bit of perspective, theHouston Chroniclewrote in August that Texas Democrats were challenging nearly $50,000 in Culberson campaign spending since 2004. Focusing just on fossils, PolitiFact asked Culbersons campaign what it bought from the Black Hills Institute. We were told it bought books and maps, not fossils, the same explanation the campaign has given since August. Only in politics does a person get attacked for trying to be better at their job, Culberson campaign spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said. The mailer from the Environmental Defense Action Fund is factually wrong. The congressman never bought fossils with campaign contributions and all other purchases are acceptable under House and FEC rules. Culberson is a voracious reader, and has spent thousands of dollars from his campaign account for books and materials, including some on paleoclimatology, that his campaign says were related to his job. In just the 2011-12 campaign season, Culbsersons campaign spent $9,848 on research or research materials, most of it from vendors such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, FEC records reviewed by PolitiFact show. Culberson chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on science and such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The research material helps him better understand the changing levels of carbon dioxide in the climate, his campaign says. Asked about records that would show he was buying books and maps, not fossils, from the Black Hills Institute, his campaign said the 2012 records for such specific purchases no longer exist. PolitFact, however, called the Black Hills Institute. They pulled the invoices from Culberson's two separate orders and sent us copies. This is what the campaign paid for, excluding shipping charges: Three large wall charts showing extensive histories of the Earth and matter, dating back 4.5 billion years. The charts have columns showing tectonic maps, changes in the earth such as mountain formation, major volcanic eruptions, glacial epochs, craters from asteroids and comets and extensive information on fossils, invertebrates and vertebrate lifeforms, as well as their extinction. These cost $19.95 apiece. One desktop model of a Triceratops. It cost $84.05. Two large -- 4.5 inches -- fossil replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth. Each cost $40. The FEC gives pretty wide latitude to the purchase of books and other materials that a candidate or officeholder might use in his or her official capacity, Brendan Fischer, an expert on campaign finance law at the Campaign Legal Center, told us. But what about a Triceratops model and replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth fossil? Id like to hear their explanation for it, he said. Its hard to see how it would pertain to their official duties. We told the campaign what we found, and it asked what our proof was. So we sent the campaign the invoices for the congressmans purchases. The response from Kelly, the spokeswoman: The invoices confirm that the congressman never bought actual fossils, and every purchase from the Black Hills Institute is considered acceptable under House and FEC rules. Asked why the congressman bought the replicas and the model at all, Kelly said, While these purchases were more than six years ago and now being used as part of a coordinated partisan hit job, the congressman believes these particular purchases were gifts, which is completely acceptable under FEC and House rules. The mailer from Environmental Defense Fund Action also mentioned Culbersons use of campaign money to buy collectibles and Civil War memorabilia. This, too, originated from the Democrats complaint referenced in the Houston Chronicle. Culberson is a Civil War history buff, collector and sometime-seller of memorabilia. But when it comes to his campaign funds, the purchases were for items such as stamps and coins the congressman got in order to give out as gifts, his campaign said. Congress members frequently use campaign money to buy gifts for constituents and volunteers, and the Culberson campaign said the Texas Republican was doing nothing different from what House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has done when buying white orchids. The FEC allows candidates and officeholders to buy and give as gifts items of nominal value as long as they are not given to family members, Fischer said. FEC reports show only what a candidate or officeholder pays, not the value of the each item. For example, in 2014, Culbersons campaign spent $3,631 on coins from an antique coin seller. In 2009 and 2010, the campaign spent $4,181 on antiques and coins for gifts, includinghat stars(an emblem worn on soldiers hats) and Texas Centennial and Republic of Texas coins, FEC records show. Culbersons campaign said the value of each coin was about $25, and the value of stamps was about $10. For a broader view, we downloaded FEC data showing all federal candidate purchases -- those for everyone with a federal campaign account -- of items listed as gifts just since January 2017. The total reached $1.8 million, for everything from model airplanes to a quilt to gift baskets. Environmental Defense Fund Action said Texas U.S. Rep. John Culberson was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught seemed strong to us at first, given the campaigns denials. But with a phone call and email, it turned out that Culberson had in fact used campaign funds -- not for fossils, but for replicas and a desktop model. Our ruling comes down to perspective. The mailers spin seemed a little strong at first, especially knowing that gift purchases, whether for Civil War trinkets or not, are allowable if considered of nominal value. But the insistence of the campaign that Culberson did not buy fossils -- and that he had only bought books and maps -- is a factor as well. OK, he didnt buy fossils. He bought fossil replicas. We rate the claim Mostly True. In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of social media posts and news articles which claimed that the U.S. economy had added 1.5 million more jobs during former President Barack Obama's final three years in office, than it did during President Donald Trump's first three years.  On Feb. 17, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, tweeted that Obama had "created 1.5 million more jobs in his last 3 years than Donald Trump has in his first 3 years." tweeted   Earlier, the left-leaning Democratic Coalition group posted a link to a Yahoo! News article with the headline "Trump's First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obama's Last 3," adding "FACT: New figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas  a decline of 19% under Trump." posted article   That article was itself a republication of a Feb. 10 report published by HuffPost, which read as follows: HuffPost "As President Donald Trump takes the stage at his reelection rally here [Manchester, New Hampshire] Monday and boasts of his economic record, there is one statistic he is likely to omit: He created 1.5 million fewer jobs in his first three years in office than predecessor Barack Obama did in his final three. Newly revised figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas  a decline of 19% under Trump, according to a HuffPost analysis." The HuffPost article didn't specify the exact metric it used in order to arrive at those numbers, but the standard figure used to gauge jobs growth in the United States is total, seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment, which is released every month as part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) establishment survey, in which BLS collects data from a sample of around 145,000 businesses and government agencies throughout the country. establishment survey When a news headline states that, for example, the economy "added 225,000 Jobs in January," that's typically a reference to seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment and it means there were 225,000 more jobs in the United States in January 2020, than there were in December 2019.  news headline states Once a year, the BLS revises its employment data after consulting more official figures collected from each state's unemployment insurance agency. This "benchmark" revision process enhances the accuracy of jobs figures and typically results in retrospective adjustments to employment statistics from every month over the preceding 10 years.  benchmark That's what happened on Feb. 7, when the BLS released both the preliminary employment figures for January and revised jobs numbers from 2010 through 2019. Those revisions meant that jobs growth in 2018 turned out to be slower than was originally recorded, prompting Slate to report that: released Slate "On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest batch of employment numbers, along with its annual benchmark revisions adjusting its estimates from prior months. Before, the government believed that the U.S. had added 223,000 jobs per month in 2018, the year that the GOPs tax cuts and new, higher spending levels took effect. It has now lowered that estimate to 193,000 per month, a significant drop." For its part, MSNBC wrote that: MSNBC The revisions for 2019 showed that the economy generated nearly 2.1 million jobs last year, which is a pretty good number. The trouble, however, is the job totals from last year were down from the year before, and were actually the lowest since 2011. Or put another way, while Trump spent the year boasting that the U.S. job market was the strongest it's ever been, 2019 saw job growth slow to an eight-year low. What's more, the best year for jobs during Trump's presidency  2.31 million in 2018  fails to reach the job growth in any of the three final years of Barack Obama's presidency. It adds a degree of irony to his rhetorical record: Trump ran for president in 2015 and 2016, telling the nation that the economy was horrible and he'd make it vastly better. But annual job growth totals from both 2015 and 2016 were better than any year of the Republican's tenure, at least so far. Taking this one step further, Trump has now been in office for 36 full months  February 2017 through January 2020  and in that time, the economy has created 6.56 million jobs. In the 36 months preceding Trump's presidency  February 2014 to January 2017  the economy created 8.08 million jobs. Before we present the figures at the heart of this fact check, it should be noted that as a rule, politicians overstate their influence over the economy when indicators are healthy, and downplay their influence when things are bad. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times, before Trump's inauguration in January 2017: wrote "The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy. Even in areas where the president really does have power to shape the economy  appointing Federal Reserve governors, steering fiscal and regulatory policy, responding to crises and external shocks  the relationship between presidential action and economic outcome is often uncertain and hard to prove." However, Trump himself has repeatedly insisted on tying positive economic indicators like employment growth to his own presidency. So even if we might dispute the premise that presidents should receive unqualified praise or blame when the economy grows or tanks, it's worth checking the numbers involved. After all, if Trump proposes that he is to be thanked for employment growth, his own logic dictates that he should be blamed if that rate of growth is slowing down. insisted In order to measure and compare jobs growth during Obama's final three years in office and jobs growth during Trump's first three, we obtained a data set containing 10 years' worth of monthly non-farm payroll employment figures, which BLS confirmed for Snopes was the most reliable and up-to-date data set available, and took into account the February 2020 benchmark revisions. The spreadsheet can be downloaded here, and the table is shown below: here   It's important to note that the monthly employment figures for December 2019 and January 2020 are both still preliminary. The January 2020 figure will be revised in March, and all the monthly figures shown in the table are liable to be further revised in 2021, when BLS conducts its annual benchmark revisions again.  There are several potential ways to compare jobs growth under Obama and Trump, depending on where you place the transition between the two administrations. Since Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017, there is a case for "starting the clock" in January 2017, but also for starting it in February 2017, since that was his first full month in office. If the purpose of the comparison is to gauge the possible influence of a presidency on employment trends, one could also measure jobs growth starting in November 2016, since that's when Trump was actually elected, or in December 2016, since that was the first full month of what could be described as the "Trump era." Finally, if one wished to use only the most reliable figures available, and exclude the preliminary data from December 2019 and January 2020, one could track jobs growth for just the first 34 months of Trump's presidency (from February 2017 to November 2019), and compare that to the final 34 months of Obama's tenure (from April 2014 to January 2017). The following table takes into account all five methods. Each of them demonstrates that the final three years of Obama's presidency saw significantly superior jobs growth than the first three years of Trump's presidency.   As the table shows, Obama's final three years in office saw significantly greater jobs growth than Trump's fist three years did, no matter where the transition between presidencies is placed. Across the first four different methods, the gap averages out at around 1.5 million jobs  meaning the claim at the center of this fact check was accurate. Employment has grown during the first three years of Trump's presidency, but at a significantly slower rate than it did towards the end of Obama's tenure  across the first four methods used here, jobs growth under Trump has averaged out at around 19% slower than the rate of growth experienced during his predecessor's final three years in office. When we exclude the two months of preliminary data (December 2019 and January 2020) and compare blocks of 34 months each (as opposed to blocks of 36 months), the jobs growth gap is naturally slightly smaller (because the time periods in question are slightly shorter), but the gap in the rate of growth is still significant, with Trump's presidency seeing employment grow 18.2% more slowly than it did during the final 34 months of Obama's time in office. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3."
  Yahoo! News. 10 February 2020. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3."
  HuffPost. 10 February 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Economic News Release -- the Employment Situation, January 2020."
  7 February 2020. Weissmann, Jordan. "Trumps Jobs Record Is Weaker Than Everyone Thought."
  Slate. 7 February 2020. Benen, Steve. "The Nagging Detail About Job Growth Trump Probably Won't Like."
  MSNBC. 7 February 2020. Irwin, Neil. "Presidents Have Less Power Over the Economy Than You Might Think."
  The New York Times. 17 January 2017. Boak, Josh; Miller, Zeke. "Trump Claims Credit for Economy, Jobs in New York Speech."
  The Associated Press. 12 November 2019. In May 2023, we reviewed a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" email scam that promised a gift card or "promo reward" worth either $50 or $90, all for taking a short survey. This was not a legitimate giveaway or promotion from Sam's Club. Any online users who followed the link in the email eventually found that this had little to do with Sam's Club, and a whole lot to do with scammers misleadingly roping people into being charged monthly fees for strange subscriptions. The scam starts with the email about Sam's Club. Its subject line read, "Confirmation Needed." The message claimed that a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" would provide a $50 gift card simply for taking a "30-second questionnaire." The message came from an email address that ended in @sendinblue.com and was routed throughsightbanner.com. A real message from Sam's Club would come from an email address ending in @samsclub.com. The link in the email led through several redirects and ended onherbonlinereward.com. After a short survey, the website presented several options to purchase various products for "free," purportedly with only shipping and handling needed to be paid. None of these items had anything to do with Sam's Club. The "free" products included a RoboKleen Vacuum, iPad Pro, Everclean Portable Vacuum, Hi-Tech Wireless Ear Pods, 5.3K60 Sports Action Cam, Hair Halo Sonic Blow Dryer, Ring Video Doorbell, and a Ninja NeverDull Knife Set. However, just about all of these offers were part of hidden subscription scams, the kind of scam where monthly subscription fees only appear on separate pages within the terms and conditions. Such scams often make no mention of these fees on the checkout page, even in the grand total. Many of them also don't include a box for customers to check off that would indicate they agree to abide by the terms. In this case, the websites that hosted the hidden subscription scams included getqualitysavings.com, getqualityoffers.com, pixelmaxpro.com, peakproductzone.com, qualityexpressshop.com, premiumgadgetbargains.com, and specialtechdeals.com. getqualitysavings.com getqualityoffers.com pixelmaxpro.com peakproductzone.com qualityexpressshop.com premiumgadgetbargains.com specialtechdeals.com The website that hosted the page for the iPad Pro,premiumonlineshopper.com, did not mention subscription fees in its terms. However, the top of the page said in big letters that anyone looking at the page was a "winner." However, at the same time, the very bottom of the page said in very small letters that the user was simply the "winner" of a single entry into a sweepstakes that had not yet ended. premiumonlineshopper.com If any readers believe that they've been scammed by a hidden subscription scam, we recommend calling your credit card company (or whatever financial institution you paid with) immediately to let them know. A new card number may be needed to ensure no more unauthorized charges are placed on the compromised card. Generally, if any readers believe they have been the victim of fraud, we recommendfiling a report with the FTC. filing a report with the FTC Always remember with online scams that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Claim:  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky penned an opinion piece about the 2012 U.S. presidential elections entitled "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire." CORRECTLY  ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Just wondering if you can verify whether the following waswritten by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, NJ: Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Rabbi fromTeaneck, N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtfulexplanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in TheIsrael National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of AmericanJews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in thatregard.  The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 isthat Americans voted for the status quo  for the incumbent Presidentand for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship,incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.And fewer people voted.2008 total.  But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didnt get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues  the traditional American virtues  of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness  no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the Reagan Democrat is one clich that should be permanently retired. [Rest of article here.] here  Origins:  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky describes himself on his web site biography as: biography [T]he spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun, a synagogue consisting of nearly 600 families located in Teaneck, New Jersey, and one of the most vibrant centers of Orthodox Jewish life today. He has served since August 1994. Previously, Rabbi Pruzansky was for nine years the spiritual leader of Congregation Etz Chaim in Kew Gardens Hills, New York. While in New York, he served a two-year term as President of the Vaad Harabonim (Rabbinical Board) of Queens. On 7 November 2012, the day after the 2012 U.S. presidential election, Rabbi Pruzansky (a Romney supporter) published the opinion piece referenced above on his blog under the title "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire," offering his viewpoint on why the election turned out the way it did and what the results augur for the future. published Last updated:  15 March 2013 Claim:   Letter to President Obama posted on Facebook thanks him for being 'selfish' and taking lavish vacations. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] Is 'thank you' letter to Obama from Yolanda Burroughs Vestal real?  Dear President Obama, I wanted to take a moment to say thank you for all you have done and are doing. You see I am a single Mom located in the very small town of Palmer, Texas. I live in a small rental house with my two children. I drive an older car that I pray daily runs just a little longer. I work at a mediocre job bringing home a much lower paycheck than you or your wife could even imagine living on. I have a lot of concerns about the new "Obamacare" along with the taxes being forced on us Americans and debts your are adding to our country. I have a few questions for you Mr. President. Have you ever struggled to pay your bills? I have. Have you ever sat and watched your children eat and you eat what was left on their  plates when they were done, because there wasn't enough for you to eat to? I have. Have you ever had to rob Peter to pay Paul, and it still not be enough? I have. Have you ever been so sick that you needed to see a doctor and get medicine, but had no health insurance because it was to expensive? I have. Have you ever had to tell your children no, when they asked for something they needed? I have. Have you ever patched holes in pants, glued shoes, replaced zippers, because it was cheaper than buying new? I have. Have you ever had to put an item or two back at the grocery store, because you didn't have enough money? I have. Have you ever cried yourself to sleep, because you had no clue how you were going to make ends meet? I have. My questions could go on and on. I don't believe you have a clue what Americans are actually going through and honestly, I don't believe you care. Not everyone lives extravagantly. While your family takes expensive trips that cost more than most of us make in two-four years, there are so many of us that suffer. Yet, you are doing all you can to add to the suffering. I think you are a very selfish and cold hearted man, who does not care what is best for the people he was elected by (not by me) to represent, but more so out for the glory of your name attached to history. So thank you Mr. President, thank you for pushing those of us that are barely staying afloat completely under water and driving America into the ground. You have made your mark in history, as the absolute worst and most hated president of the United States. God have mercy on your soul! Sincerely,Yolanda VestalAverage American Origins:  This open letter to President Obama ('thanking' him for being 'selfish' and taking lavish vacations)was posted on the Facebook page of Yolanda Burroughs-Vestal of Palmer, Texas, at the end of October 2013 and quickly picked up tens of thousands of shares and went 'viral' among online outlets. posted Facebook Last updated:  4 November 2013 Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive officer of online retailing giant Amazon.com, became the world's richest person in October 2017, according to Forbes magazine. And in January 2018, Bezos' company opened the first "Amazon Go"  a new kind of store with no checkout required  in Seattle, Washington, to considerable fanfare: Forbes Amazon Go  Amid a wave of increased press coverage and scrutiny, a viral meme made a number number of claims about Amazon in January 2018: meme  A spokesperson for Amazon confirmed the fact that the company's new grocery store, Amazon Go, does not accept SNAP benefits or food stamps as a form of payment. The source of the claim about Amazon workers receiving food stamps was a January 2018 report by the nonprofit group PolicyMatters Ohio, which estimated that roughly 700 Amazon workers in Ohio (more than 10 percent of the company's employees in the state) receive Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program benefits: report As of last August, 1,430 Amazon employees or family members were getting assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), according to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services. In August, the average Ohio family receiving SNAP contained just more than two people. Based on that average, more than 700 Amazon workers received benefits that month, or more than one in every 10 of those Ohioans employed by the company. PolicyMatters Ohio arrived at that estimate by finding the number of Ohio food stamp recipients who are part of a household where someone works for Amazon (1,430), then dividing that by 2.02 (the average size of a household on food stamps in Ohio at that time). The resulting estimate is about 700 workers, or 11.8 of Amazon's Ohio workforce. We were unable to find any research or data on Amazon workers' availing themselves of food stamps in other states.  average size PolicyMatters Ohio sent us figures to corroborate their claims, which they received from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (That data is available for download in spreadsheet form here.) Further, whether or not an individual qualifies for food stamps is determined by more than just income. Having a gross monthly household income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty limit is an important factor. However, you can also qualify for SNAP benefits with an income above the poverty limit if someone in your household is disabled or elderly, and the poverty limit is pro-rated depending on the size of your household. here factor Another factor to consider is whether a worker is employed by Amazon on a full-time or part-time basis. Someone whose only source of income was their part-time job at an Amazon fulfillment center would earn a lower monthly income than a full-time worker in a similar position, even if they received the same hourly wage. This circumstance might well qualify someone for food stamps even if their hourly wage at Amazon were otherwise not too bad. In an email, an Amazon spokesperson told us that Amazon full-time hourly employees in Ohio earn between $14.50 and $15 an hour as a starting wage with regular pay increases plus Amazon stock and performance based bonuses." On 1 February 2018, Amazon's jobs web site listed seven open warehouse positions in Ohio. Only one was full-time, a description which a company spokesperson told us entails 40 hours of work per week. The hourly wage for the part-time jobs ranged from $10.50 to $11.75, while a "reduced time" position came with a starting rate of between $14.50 and $17 an hour. The full-time position had a starting hourly wage of between $14.50 and $15. positions According to a major 2016 report by the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that advocates for more sustainable community development, Amazon's warehouse workers across 11 metropolitan areas in the United States earned, on average, 15 percent lower than could be expected for a worker in that industry (page 39). report Institute for Local Self-Reliance page 39 Amazon told us this analysis was "flawed," because it compared Amazon wages with "traditional warehouse jobs and compensation," claiming that the appropriate comparison would be between Amazon wages and retail wages, because "that industry more closely resembles the environment of an Amazon fulfillment center." Additionally, the report's authors said it was difficult to ascertain exactly what proportion of warehouse workers were on permanent contracts, and what proportion were temps, but estimated (based on news reports and the industry average) that the permanent to temporary ratio was roughly 60/40.  A spokesperson for the company gave contradictory figures, saying: "Throughout the year on average, 90 percent of associates across the companys U.S. fulfillment network are regular, full-time employees. That applies for states like Ohio." The spokesperson confirmed that "regular" means permanent. The ILSR criticized Amazon for using the label "seasonal"  which has connotations of the annual retail holiday rush  to describe the temporary positions it fills year-round.  Amazon has also previously come under fire for what have been described as difficult working conditions. In its 2016 report, the ILSR summarized employment at the company's fulfillment centers as "grueling work for lower pay than average": Employees describe running across warehouses that sprawl the distance of 17 football fields; production quotas, or rates, that can be set 60 percent higher than the industry standard; and a disciplinary system that tracks workers every action and inflicts points for any deviation from Amazons standard. Underlying these conditions is Amazons fundamental approach to its warehouse workers. The companys warehouses are finely-tuned machines, and the company creates conditions such that its workers are expected to be parts of that machine. The result is a work environment that is profoundly dehumanizing. In response to these descriptions, a spokesperson for the company told us: Like most companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazon employee and we measure actual performance against those expectations. Associate performance is measured and evaluated over a long period of time as we know that a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour. We support people who are not performing to the levels expected with dedicated coaching to help them improve. While the meme says that Amazon grossed $128 billion in sales "last year," that number is not quite accurate. For one thing, Amazon's 2017 earnings had not yet been published in January 2018, when the meme was created. Instead, Grit Post, where the meme appears to have originated, said in a list of sources that they had used Amazon's 2016 numbers. Amazon actually had net (not gross) sales of $136 billion in 2016, according to the company's full year financial results. This means gross sales (which were not reported) were even higher than that, and certainly higher than the $128 billion claimed in the meme.  sources results Amazon's sales for 2017 are likely to be astronomical. Based on the company's predictions for the final three months of the year, Amazon's full-year net sales in 2017 might reach around $178 billion.  predictions Vinton, Kate.  "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Is the Richest Person in the World  Again."
  Forbes.  27 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Inside Amazon Go: The Store of the Future."
  CNN.  26 January 2018. Schiller, Zach.  "More Ohio Amazon Workers Relying on Food Aid."
  Policy Matters Ohio.  5 January 2018. Office of Fiscal and Monitoring Services.  "Public Assistance Monthly Statistics Report  August 2017."
  August 2017. LeVecchia, Olivia and Stacy Mitchell.  "Amazon's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities."
  Institute for Local Self-Reliance.  November 2016. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013