Did 'John-John' From 'Sesame Street' End Up On a Sex Offender List?
In November 2019, an old clip from the children's popular show "Sesame Street" started to go viral on Twitter. The clip, which was viewed more than 8 million times in a few days, showed a child named "John-John" counting to 10 with a muppet in 1971, and then showed John-John's return to "Sesame Street" about 20 years later: One of my favorite @sesamestreet moments of all time... pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb @sesamestreet pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb  ?Kristina A. Holzweiss #HackingSchoolLibraries (@lieberrian) November 21, 2019 November 21, 2019 While many viewers were delighted that John-John appeared to have grown into an upstanding citizen and member of the U.S. Air Force, others claimed there was a bit more to the story: Many Twitter users pointed to a 2015 article published on I Love Old School Music as evidence that he'd been in trouble with the law. Here's an excerpt from that article, as well as a mugshot of a man named "John Bernard Williams": I Love Old School Music ... John ended up getting convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child in the state of Texas... ... Texas Department Of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry Records reveal that John sexually assaulted a 4 year old female child and that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, was released on parole and is now under a lifetime mandatory supervision by the state of Texas.   A man named John Bernard Williams truly is on the Texas Public Sex Offender registry. We also found that much of the known biographical information for "John-John" matched with the information of this offender from the Texas Department of Public Safety. the Texas Public Sex Offender For instance, a profile on "Airman John-John" published by the Air Force Service Information and News Center in 1989 identified him as "John Bernard Williams." That article also identified his mother by the first name of "Trina." This is also the name of convicted sex offender John Bernard Williams' mother, according to a 2000 opinion on Williams' court case. Air Force Service Information and News Center 2000 opinion We also know that John-John was born in 1969 because many news outlets reported that the viral "Sesame Street" counting clip was filmed in 1971 when he was just 2 years old. The Muppet Fandom Wiki provides a more specific date of birth for John-John (Sept. 24, 1969), but we have been unable to verify this information. If this information is accurate, though, John-John and John Bernard Williams share the exact same birth date. If it's inaccurate, we still know that they were born in the same year. reported Muppet Fandom Wiki Lastly, in 1998, The New York Times caught up with John-John for the 30th anniversary of "Sesame Street." That article noted that John-John was living in San Antonio, Texas. A year later, charges would be filed against a man named John Bernard Williams in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located, for the sexual assault of a child. San Antonio, Texas. The information we've gathered seems to show that John-John, the 2-year-old child who made multiple appearances on "Sesame Street," may be the same person who ended up on the offender list in Texas. However, it is possible that this is just a coincidence. Given the nature of the rumor, and the fact that we have been unable to definitively tie these two identities together (via family statements, social security numbers, fingerprints, etc.) we are rating this claim "Unproven." We've reached out to the Texas Department Of Public Safety and will update this article if more information becomes available. Ramos, Cindy.  "Grover San Antonian's 14 Years on 'Sesame Street' Influenced His Life."   San Antonio Express-News.  12 May 1998. Sutherland, Anna.  "Airman John-John."   Air Force Service Information and News Center.  1989. Martin, Brett.  "TELEVISION; Still a Bilingual Guy, But Without Muppets."   New York Times.  29 March 1998. iloveoldschoolmusic.com.  "Man Who Played Sesame Street Kid 'John John' Was Convicted Of Heartbreaking Crime Against Child."   22 October 2015.
Scam:  Card-skimming thieves can make fraudulent purchases with information read from RFID-enabled credit cards carried in pockets and purses.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] Just received an email concerning "Credit Card Pickpocketing". It was broadcast from Memphis WREG TV.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO I read this about a couple weeks ago, and then checked my cards for the little "WiFi Signal Icon" on each one.  I found none w/that signal on them, but I was determined to watch for it when my cards came in on renewals. Well, yesterday I got my CHASE SLATE card AND THERE IT WAS!  My first time to see it. I'll not activate that card after seeing this.  I guess I'll go to the bank and see if I can replace it w/a non wi fi (Radio Frequency Card)....? Thought all my contacts ought to see this if you've not already seen this demo....wow!  Origins:  In December 2010, Memphis television station WREG aired an "Electronic Pickpocketing" piece on the potential risks posed by "contactless" credit/debit/ATM cards containing embedded RFID (radio frequency identification technology) chips.  Such chips encode basic information (e.g., account numbers, expiration dates) that can be picked up by point-of-sale RFID readers, eliminating the need for cards to be physically handled or swiped.  One possible drawback to this technology is unauthorized persons might use RFID readers of their own to surreptitiously glean that same information, as demonstrated in WREG's report, which featured Walt Augustinowicz of Identity Stronghold using a card reader and a netbook computer to engage in card "skimming"  picking up account information off RFID-enabled cards carried in the pockets and purses of random passers-by on the street.  A few days after it broadcast the original "Electronic Pickpocketing" story, WREG reported the piece had gone  Electronic Pickpocketing  viral, racking up 1.2 million views in just three days. Despite all the publicity WREG's report garnered, the concept of RFID-enabled credit card theft was hardly a new one.  Various news, technical, and security  outlets have been reporting (and demonstrating) for several years the potential risk that information transmitted wirelessly by RFID-enabled cards might be picked up by eavesdropping thieves using relatively cheap equipment.  But although (as demonstrated in WREG's piece) it's certainly possible for interlopers to read pieces of information from some contactless cards under some circumstances, the extent to which this activity might be used to facilitate theft is currently difficult to gauge. reporting As the WREG report noted, representatives from the Identity Theft Resource Center said "they've never seen a case of RFID skimming used to steal information,"  but it's also the case that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for skimming victims to identify exactly how their card information had been stolen. Nonetheless, other analysts have offered reasons why they believe card skimming may not be nearly as much of a threat as some reports have made it sound:  The data streams emitted by contactless cards don't include such information as PINs and CVV (Card Verification Value) security codes  or, in newer cards,  customer names  and without those pieces of information a card skimmer should not be able to utilize the stolen card numbers to print up counterfeit cards or engage in Card Not Present (CNP) transactions: CNP None of the cards transmits the additional number on the front or back, known as the card validation code, that some businesses require for online purchases. [C]ompany representatives argued [that] the process of making purchases with the cards involves verification procedures based on powerful encryption that make each transaction unique. Most cards, they said, actually transmit a dummy number that does not match the number embossed on the card, and that number can be used only in connection with the verification "token," or a small bit of code, that is encrypted before being sent. "It's basically useless information," said David Bonalle, vice president and general manager for advanced payments at American Express. "You can't steal that data and just play it back and expect that transaction to work." However, some merchants are not assiduous about requiring extra levels of security information from their customers beyond credit card number and expiration date, and security providers contend that card skimmers can still find plenty of places to make purchases with nothing more than 16-digit account numbers and expiration dates.  Although some contactless cards can be read from as far as a few feet away, refinements to the RFID technology employed in newer cards limits their transmission range to a much smaller distance.   Although RFID-enabled cards may have originally transmitted their information in plain text, newer contactless cards are adding encryption to the data streams and thus cannot be read directly by ordinary card readers.  (Encryption requires additional processing time, however, so businesses that place a premium on speed may still eschew its use in their card processing systems.)  Card skimming generally works when the victim is carrying only a single contactless card; otherwise, the transmissions from multiple cards can create a jumbled, unintelligible stream. It remains the case that cardholders are not liable for the fraudulent use of their credit card information, but consumers who are extra cautious have the option of investing in secure sleeves that shield the RFID signals transmitted by their cards from electronic eavesdroppers. On 17 February 2016, an updated version of the rumor began making the rounds, this time accompanied by a photo of a man holding a Point of Sale (PoS) device: version   In theory, all that a thief would need to do would be to enter a price lower than 30, then tap the device against people's pockets and they would be charged. Almost all new bank cards and credit cards issued in the UK now offer the chips, which allow users to authorise small transactions without entering a PIN code. Facebook user R Jarvis claims he saw the alleged scammer at work, saying, "So this guy was spotted wandering round with a Point of Sale (POS) device. All he has to do is key in a price less than 30 and then touch the device on the pocket that contains your wallet." However, the photo that went along with this claim wasn't taken by Paul Jarvis. It appeared in an 8 February 2016 article about possible electronic pickpocketing in Russia. In any case, "electronic pickpocketing," with or without Point of Sale devices, remained rare as of 2016, but RFID sleeves for cards remained readily available for those with lingering concerns. claim article available Last updated:  17 February 2016     Sources:   Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  3 December 2010.     Noll, Scott.  "Electronic Pickpocketing Goes Viral."   WREG-TV [Memphis].  6 December 2010.     Schwartz, John.  "Researchers See Privacy Pitfalls in No-Swipe Credit Cards."   The New York Times.  23 October 2006.     Vamosi, Robert.  "RFID-Enabled Credit Card Theft."   CNET.com.  27 October 2006.     KKCO-TV [Grand Junction, CO].  "Protecting Your Identity Against Credit Card Hackers."   15 May 2012. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. Getting companies to pay more in taxes is one of the pillars of Bernie Sanders plans for America. The extra revenue plays a key role in everything from universal health care, to tuition-free college, to rebuilding the nations aging water mains, bridges and highways. How much does he think is there? The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens, SanderstweetedApril 6, 2016. Thats a fair chunk of change, and we thought wed see if it held up. By the way, theres no single definition of a tax haven. The term covers both profits from overseas subsidiaries and the use of offshore accounts in places like Bermuda. The common thread is money is booked in places with lower taxes than the United States. The Sanders campaign directed us to ajoint studyfrom Citizens for Tax Justice and US PIRG, both left-leaning organizations. Their analysis began with the more than $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are holding in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes. When the foreign subsidiary of a U.S. multinational turns a profit, the money is taxed at the rate where the subsidiary is based. Uncle Sam doesnt get a penny until the multinational brings the money home. That gets a little confusing because the money might actually be in the United States, but it isnt on the books of the U.S. parent. In any event, for tax purposes, most of those funds are not formally repatriated or brought back to the United States. The logic is simple: Why pay a higher rate in the United States, formally as high as 35 percent, when you might be paying a fifth that much in a foreign country, such as Ireland? The Citizens for Tax Justice/US PIRG analysts looked atthe 57 corporations that actually told regulators how big their tax bill would be if they brought the money home. These 57 companies would owe $184.4 billion in additional federal taxes, the report said. The analysts made some assumptions and applied the results to the companies that didnt release this information. The total for all Fortune 500 companies combined? They would collectively owe $620 billion in additional federal taxes. We asked independent tax scholars what they thought of that estimate. Some of them said it was in the ballpark. Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, said Sanders might actually be underestimating. Harvey pointed to the foreign earnings that multinationals report as indefinitely reinvested. Officially, thetotal is about $2.3 trillion. But Harvey thinks that overlooks a lot of cash. The total unrepatriated foreign earnings would be even higher because companies like Apple and Pfizer do not label all undistributed foreign earnings as indefinitely reinvested,  Harvey said. If one assumes that U.S. multinational corporations have approximately $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of unrepatriated foreign earnings, and the average tax rate on most undistributed foreign earnings is less than 10 percent (in many cases close to 0 percent), then a $620 billion estimate is very reasonable, and may be low. Edward Kleinbard, professor of law at the University of Southern California and a former chief of staff at the U.S. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, took a different approach, and reached approximately the same conclusion. Kleinbard took theJoint Committee on Taxationsestimate of how much revenue would come from a one-time 14 percent tax on those foreign earnings kept overseas. This is in fact what President Barack Obama has proposed in his latest budget. The net haul from that would be about $195 billion. Using that figure, Kleinbard estimated how much would come in if the rate were 35 percent, rather than 14 percent. You get to $488 billion, he said. Thats not perfect, because of how foreign tax credits (offsets to U.S. taxes) would have to be handled, but its the right ballpark. Thats less than the $620 billion Sanders cited, but as Kleinbard put it, it's a honkin' big number. The banking giantCredit Suisseestimated the total new revenues at $533 billion. Edmund Outslay, professor of taxation at Michigan State University, thinks Sanders overshot the mark. Outslay told PolitiFact that he questions a key assumption in the study behind Sanders number. The study estimates an average tax rate of 6 percent that all Fortune 500 companies are paying overseas today. Because any foreign tax bill is deducted from what a firm owes Washington, the lower the foreign tax rate, the higher the potential revenues for the United States. Outslay thinks 6 percent is unrealistic. Some studies I have seen estimate a foreign tax rate of about 16.5 percent, Outslay said. If this number is more accurate, the total tax to be gained (would be) $550 billion. At 25 percent, the net U.S. tax would only be $320 billion. Outslay himself leans more toward a $300 billion figure. In addition to thinking multinationals are paying a higher rate overseas, he also said in most cases, the foreign earnings are actually invested in bricks and mortar. Those dollars are not cash in the way Sanders talked about this. How the IRS would treat that money is unclear. All this leaves us with a range of estimates of the potential tax revenues, ranging from about $300 billion (Outslay), to $490 billion (Kleinbard), to $550 billion (Credit Suisse), to over $620 billion (Harvey). Our ruling Sanders said that if American multinational corporations had to pay taxes on the profits they made overseas, they would owe $620 billion. This is at the high end of the estimates we collected. Sanders also described the overseas holdings as cash. According to one expert we reached, a lot of that money might be invested in factories and other hard infrastructure and might not be available for tax collections. Still, the mid-range estimate from credible sources is in the $500 billion to $550 billion range. All the numbers cited were relatively high. We rate Sanders estimate Mostly True. In the summer of 2020, a new nationwide wave of protests against racial injustice and police brutality was accompanied by a rising campaign to substantially divert funding away from police forces, as well as to replace existing models of local law enforcement. The movement, referred to in shorthand by the somewhat imprecise phrase "defund the police" faced intense opposition from some right-leaning quarters, especially supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. As a result, companies and organizations faced condemnation for their supposed association with the "defund the police" movement, and in July, readers asked Snopes to examine one such claim.  condemnation A widely shared meme read: meme "Starbucks says Defund the Police. Let's defund Starbucks. Ask all friends and family not to be Starbucks patrons. Dunkin coffee is just as good!"   We could find no evidence of any instance in which Starbucks, as a company, called for police forces to be defunded or abolished, promoted or supported the "defund the police" campaign, or indeed used the words "defund the police" (or similar phrases) in its public utterances or on its social media accounts. As a result, we are at a loss as to the origins of the false claim that "Starbucks says defund the police." The company has on several occasions articulated support for the Black Lives Matter movement and opposition to racial injustice, but that is clearly not the same as supporting the "defund the police" campaign.  several occasions articulated support Black Lives Matter We found no evidence that Starbucks supports the "defund the police" campaign. By contrast, we found ample evidence of the company's partnering with various police forces as part of the "Coffee with a Cop" initiative, which encourages police officers and members of the public to meet in their local Starbucks caf with the aim of creating understanding, rather than hostility, between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police.  Coffee with a Cop It's worth noting that that initiative seeks to repair and improve relations between police forces and local communities, especially people of color within those communities. As such, it is actually rather antithetical to the "defund the police" movement, whose proponents often argue that those relationships are damaged beyond repair and efforts to reform policing have failed and should no longer be attempted.  argue Mac Guill, Dan. "Has Ford Motor Co. Donated Millions to 'Defund the Police'?"
 Snopes.com. 10 July 2020. Starbucks. "Black Lives Matter: Starbucks Update on Standing Against Racial Injustice."
 12 June 2020. Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1). At the Texas Republican Partys 2012 convention, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin told the crowd that the high stakes in Novembers election include American jobs.If the amount of Americans were in the workforce today like they were when President Obama took office, the labor force participation rate, our unemployment rate would be 11 percent today, the House Budget Committee chairman said in his keynote speech June 9, 2012.We decided to check.First, we defined our terms.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the U.S. labor force participation rate by taking the total workforce -- people who are employed or job-hunting -- and dividing by the total civilian population aged 16 or older. (People in military, medical or penal institutions are excluded. )The general unemployment rate, which is the one most people are familiar with, expresses how many people in the labor force are unemployed.Generally, climbs and dips in the general unemployment rate are a reasonable indicator that more Americans are losing jobs or getting hired, respectively. But in times of recession, high numbers of workers simply stop looking for jobs. Common reasons they give are retirement, disability, going to school or caring for household members,according toresearchers at the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank who drew on federal data.But when adults stop looking for work, the overall workforce shrinks, which can have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate -- which could lead to erroneous conclusions about U.S. economic conditions.To counteract that effect, the BLS also calculates what it calls the U-6 unemployment rate, which folds in people who stopped job-hunting and people who took part-time jobs for economic reasons. Since the U-6 rate was first published in 1994, its three highest points have all accompaniedrecessions, first in 1990-91, then 2001 and most recently 2007-09.Of late, Republicans have taken to highlighting this distinction, as Ryan does here.His claim can be restated this way: If the same percentage of Americans were employed or looking for work inMay 2012as in January 2009, general unemployment would have been 11 percent instead of 8.2 percent.We asked Ryans office for his backup materials, and spokesman Kevin Seifert sent us data, calculations and supporting news coverage.Seifert told us by email thataccording to the BLS, the January 2009 workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent, while the May 2012 rate was 63.8 percent. Applying those to the May 2012 population of 243 million, he said, gives a labor force of 159.6 million at the first rate and 155 million at the latter rate.Subtracting the real labor force (155 million) from the hypothetical labor force (159.6 million) shows that 4.6 million more people would actively be seeking work right now instead of being characterized as discouraged, etc., he wrote.Adding 4.6 million unemployed workers to the May 2012 unemployment count, which was 12.7 million, would give a total 17.3 million unemployed, Seifert said. Then, 17.3 million unemployed people divided by 155 million would give a general unemployment rate of 11.2 percent, Seifert said.We checked thenumbersand math for ourselves, then asked Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based regional economist for the labor bureau, for help analyzing the calculations. It looked to us like Ryan should have divided by the hypothetical labor force, rather than the real May 2012 labor force (to correctly describe the unemployment rate of the larger, hypothetical group), and Abbot agreed. But neither that distinction nor small differences due to causes such as rounding off numbers seriously affected the result.Accepting the assumption that all 4.6 million adults added to the labor force would be unemployed -- and using BLS figures that were not rounded off as much as the ones Seifert used to describe his math to us -- Abbot got a result of 10.9 percent.Our rulingThe general unemployment rate in June 2012 would have been 10.9 percent if the labor force participation rate had remained at the 65.5 percent in place when Obama became president. Thats about 11 percent.We rate Ryans statement True. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) Claim:  The New Orleans Public Library is soliciting book donations. Status:  Multiple:  New Orleans libraries are accepting book donations from the public:   True.   Donating books is the best way to help the New Orleans libraries rebuild:   False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2006] Seeking Book DonationsThe New Orleans Public Library(New Orleans LA) The New Orleans Public Library is asking for any and all hardcover and paperback books for people of all ages in an effort to restock the shelves after Katrina.  The staff will assess which titles will be designated for its collections.  The rest will be distributed to destitute families or sold for library fundraising.  Please send your books to: Rica A. Trigs, Public RelationsNew Orleans Public Library219 Loyola AvenueNew Orleans, LA 70112 If you tell the post office that they are for the library in New Orleans, they will give you the library rate which is slightly less than the book rate. Origins:  The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina to the Gulf area included serious harm to the New Orleans Public Library (NOPL) system. Katrina damaged the main library and all 12 branches in the system, and as of March 2006 only the main library and four branches are open, and even those for only five hours a day. Until just recently, only 19 of the former 216 NOPL employees remained on the job, the rest having been laid off (partly because of city budget cuts). While another 21 workers have since been rehired (bringing the total up to 40), the libraries are not only physically damaged but are also badly  understaffed. Which brings us to this March 2006 appeal for used books with which to restock the New Orleans Public Library system. While the NOPL will accept donated books, potential contributors should take into account the enormous staffing problem the NOPL is attempting to cope with. While on the surface it might seem a brilliant plan to ship off all one's unwanted volumes to answer the need for books to replace those lost or hopelessly damaged by the flooding, the public libraries in that beleaguered city haven't the staff to adequately receive, sort through, catalogue, and place on the shelves all of the public's kindhearted offerings. With so many of that area's libraries still physically unfit to be opened to the public, it's fair to say they currently lack even the shelves to put the books on. In response to this widely e-mailed appeal, the New Orleans Public Library has created a FAQ to aid those persons desirous of lending a helping hand to that institution. In a nutshell, they ask the public to donate money over books: FAQ Does the library accept book donations? Yes. However, due to storage and staff limitations, we ask that donors consider a few suggestions:  If you are a publisher, please contact us in advance at wmascari@gno.lib.la.us before shipping large quantities of books.  If you are an individual sending your own used books, please consider making a cash donation instead. As the NOPL states: What is the best way to help New Orleans Public Library? Monetary donations are the best way to help the library rebuild (link here to donate online). If you would rather mail your donation, please make your check payable to NOPL Foundation and send it to New Orleans Public Library Foundation, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112. (link here to donate online) While packaging up your old books and mailing them off might seem the perfect solution to the NOPL's problems, do trust that the library better knows its own needs. Keep in mind that a great many books donated to libraries everywhere prove to be non-useful to those institutions; so, if you are moved to help, send money instead. If you want to support the New Orleans libraries with your old books, you can best do so by selling them yourself and giving the proceeds to the NOPL. Barbara "send cash, not cache" Mikkelson Last updated:  18 March 2006    Sources:   Associated Press.  "Library Journal, American Library Assn Fixing Two N.O. Libraries."   11 March 2006. Democratic presidential candidate Martin OMalley recently offered a striking comparison about American families and college tuition. Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks' wages, OMalley wrote in apost on Medium. Today, we are saddling our graduating kids and their families with more than $1.3 trillion in loan debt. Really? We decided to take a closer look. What tuition cost The easier part of this equation to nail down is the average cost of college tuition. According to theU.S. Education Department, average undergraduate tuition and fees -- excluding room and board -- in the 1965-66 school year was $607 per year for a four-year college (public and private) and $203 for a two-year college. (Adding room and board bumps up those figures to $1,375 and $884, respectively, but OMalley said tuition, so we wont consider room and board.) What the average GM worker made According to anarticlein the Aug. 25, 1964, edition of theChicago Tribune, the average hourly wage in the auto industry that year was $3.01. That grew a bit after anew union contractwas negotiated later that year, but a figure in that ballpark is about right for the time frame OMalley was talking about, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry and labor group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.Historical wage datafrom Ford, for instance, shows that the base wage for a major assembler was $2.91 an hour in 1965. Dziczek noted that workers in durable-goods manufacturing averaged 44 hours per week in 1965, with time-and-a-half for the final four hours. So a $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period OMalley cites. So if you ignore taxes -- a questionable policy, but one well grant OMalley for the sake of argument -- then two weeks of average GM pay would have been enough to pay for one year at the typical two-year college in 1965. But it would not be enough to pay for a year at typical four-year college. That would take a little more than four weeks work. What the OMalley campaign says The OMalley campaign said they took the wage number from a column by University of California-Berkeley economist Robert Reich, who also served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. In 2014, Reich wrote. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker got paid $35 an hour in todays dollars. But that works out to $4.66 an hourin 1965 dollars, and contemporary evidence suggests that wage is about 50 percent too high. Meanwhile, on the tuition side of the equation, the OMalley campaign said that one year of in-state, undergraduate tuition atUniversity of Iowain the 1964-65 school year cost $340, and that this was the case for other states, as well, such as New Hampshire. However, if you use the $3.10-an-hour wage -- rather than Reichs $4.66-an-hour wage -- then two weeks pay, even when untaxed, would not quite cover a years in-state tuition at the University of Iowa. And since many GM workers wouldnt have been residents of Iowa, and thus eligible for the in-state rate at the University of Iowa, we think its fairer to look at average tuition nationally. Comparing 1965 to today So OMalleys comparison doesnt quite hold up. However, its fair to note that he has a point about the larger question. Namely, it was a whole lot more realistic to be able to pay for a year of tuition with just a few weeks of blue-collar income in 1965 than it is now. During the 2012-13 school year, a years tuition at the average four-year college was $14,101, and the base wage at Ford for a major assembler was $28.13 an hour. If you include overtime pay, then two 44-hour weeks at that wage (without setting aside anything for taxes) works out to about $2,700, or less than 20 percent of the one-year average tuition cost. At that rate, it would take more than 10 weeks work, including some overtime, to pay for a years worth of tuition. We should note that the rise of college tuition costs is the bigger culprit here. In nominal dollars, auto worker wages have grown ninefold since 1965. But average four-year-college tuition is up 23 times from what it was in 1965. Our ruling OMalley said, Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks wages. Thats not quite right -- it would have taken about four weeks of work at GM, not two, to pay for a year at the average four-year college in 1965, and more than that if you take account of taxes. Still, OMalley has a point that the situation in 1965 was quite a deal compared to today, when a typical auto worker would have to work for 10 weeks in order to pay for a year of tuition at the average four-year college. We rate the statement Mostly True. CORRECTION, Feb. 2, 2016: The calculations in our original version slightly overstated the typical weekly and biweekly wages for UAW workers. A $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period Martin OMalley cited. The difference does not affect the final rating. During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked "from day one" in the White House to drive down American unemployment to "record" low levels  evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's "pro-growth agenda" was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. news release Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: reiterated   About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that "50 year" claim and said his administration is responsible for the "best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country." He tweeted: tweeted   The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he "has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln," and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. claimed After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers.   This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim  that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever  we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate  the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed  in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the "Current Population Survey." Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. Bureau of Labor Statistics According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) The survey   Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the "the lowest level in more than 50 years" under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term  Jan. 20, 2017  to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.)  Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5%  the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet  that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed)  was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. Trump was correct According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that "an unusually large number of people in their prime working years" were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. BBC economists' analysis Federal Reserve System's board of governors CBS News We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: were true technically ended But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim  that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs  accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit.   Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office  the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. "At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend," economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. told MSNBC In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: NBC News The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. Thats not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but its hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: labor statistics by NPR So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch  including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth  broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate  but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data  we rate this claim "false." per economists BBC News. "US Jobless Rate At Lowest Since 1969."  3 May 2019. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."  Accessed 13 October 2020. Wingfield, Brian. "The End of the Great Recession? Hardly."  Forbes. 20 September 2010. Jones, Chuck. "Trump's Economic Scorecard: 3 Years In Office."  Forbes. 10 February 2020. Horsley, Scott. "FACT CHECK: Who Gets Credit For The Booming U.S. Economy."  NPR. 12 September 2018. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Which President Gets The Credit For The Booming Economy?"  MSNBC. 10 September 2018.