Did a Black Lives Matter organizer express indifference towards looting by stating, 'I am not concerned if an individual chooses to engage in looting'?
After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020.
Claim:   Photograph shows U.S. Air Force jets celebrating a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] THIS PICTURE IS CIRCULATING ON FACEBOOK, STATING THAT THE US AIR FORCE SENT UP THESE JETS WITH COLORED SMOKE TO SYMBOLIZE THE GAY PRIDE FLAG, AND CELEBRATE MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT TODAY 26 JUNE 2013. COLORS ARE ALL WRONG, AND IT LOOKS PHOTOSHOPPED. WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO BE REAL, BUT DONT WANT TO REPOST ANYTHING MISLEADING.  Origins:  On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of United States v. Windsor which struck down a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that strictly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby paving the way for same-sex couples who are legally married to access numerous federal privileges  and programs that use marital status as a criterion for eligibility (such as Social Security  survivors' benefits and the ability to file joint tax returns). Shortly afterwards, the photograph displayed above was widely circulated in social media with claims that it pictured U.S. Air Force jets participating in a celebration of the DOMA ruling, the colored smoke trails behind them symbolizing the rainbow of colors that became the standard symbol of the gay community in the 1970s.  However, this image has nothing to do with a purported celebration of the DOMA ruling by the U.S. Air Force, as this same picture has been widely reproduced on numerous web sites all over the world since well before June 2013.  The source of the original (as displayed on flickr) appears to bea photograph taken at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) Airshow in  Fairford, Gloucestershire (UK), on 17 July 2010. flickr RIAT Last updated:  27 June 2013 In vetoingHouse Bill 535, a measure dealing with how state agencies select and buy goods, Gov. Rick Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. Perry said in apress releaseMay 25, 2013, the day of the veto, that HB 535 requires state agencies, when purchasing goods, to give preference to goods manufactured in Texas. This bill simply does not change current law. Soon after, a reader emailed us to ask: Is this truly in current law? The law that the bill would have modified is inSection 2155.444of the state's Government Code, which says that when making purchases of goods, including agricultural products, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. Next, the law says, goods from elsewhere in the United States must be considered. State law has contained Texas-first purchasing preferences for more than 50 years. According to a May 4, 1981, state attorney generalopinion, the Legislature created Texas preferences with a 1957 law which replaced an older statute favoring bidders who have an established local business. The1957 law, according to the opinion, created a preference for products produced in Texas as well as one for products offered by Texas citizens. HB 535, asfiledJan. 15, 2013,byRep. Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, added manufactured to produced or grown and included a definition: Manufactured means, with respect to assembled goods, the final assembly, processing, packaging, testing, or other process that adds value, quality, or reliability. It added a requirement that the state comptroller shall promote the purchase of such Texas-grown or otherwise Texas-created goods. In the legislationsfinal version, that definition encompassed items produced as a result of a manufacturing process that alters the form or function of components in a way that adds value and transforms the parts into something different from what simply assembling the parts would have produced. Both versions also added a requirement that the state comptroller and state agencies promote the purchase of Texas goods. Ed Sills, spokesman for the Texas AFL-CIO labor federation, which supported the vetoed proposal, told us by phone that the combined effect of requiring such promotion, emphasizing manufactured goods and encouraging agencies to buy Texan, buy American could have been powerful. Current law does have preferences. It doesnt have as robust a preference as it would have if this bill had passed, Sills said. A spokesman for the state comptrollers office -- whichcounselsstate agencies on purchasing -- said by email that the state interprets the current law to cover goods manufactured in Texas. R.J. DeSilva said, Texas agencies have always considered the term produced to include manufactured goods. Therefore, the preference for manufactured goods was already being provided. DeSilva sent us a link tocomptroller procurement rulesin the Texas Administrative Code stating, Supplies, materials, and equipment are considered to be produced in Texas if they are manufactured in Texas; manufactured does not include the work of packaging or repackaging. Our ruling Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. That holds up. Existinglawsays that when making purchases of goods, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. And the comptroller operates under rules that say items manufactured in Texas are considered to be produced in Texas. We rate Perrys statement as True. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. In late February 2021, several social media users alleged U.S. President Joe Biden used the N-word while addressing world leaders at a virtual event to discuss international security policies. As part of the Munich Security Conference, an annual event that convenes hundreds of policy makers from across the world, Biden spoke on camera for roughly 20 minutes on Feb. 19, describing his administration's desire to be on good terms with the European Union. Approximately three-quarters of the way into his remarks, social media users alleged he uttered the racial slur referring to Black people. Some people accused the president of saying the N-word accidentally, while others raised the possibility that he intentionally made the alleged racist comment. accidentally intentionally One conservative commentator pointed to closed captioning on recordings of the speech on YouTube as alleged evidence of the president indeed saying the word, despite the fact the video platform's captioning system runs on computer-generated, speech-recognition software that is known for error and not necessarily a true indication of what someone said. conservative commentator known for error   To investigate the legitimacy of the underlying allegation  whether the president at any point during the virtual Munich Security Conference event used the N-word for whatever reason  we obtained an official White House transcript, as well as a video recording via C-SPAN, of Biden's speech. White House transcript C-SPAN Considering that the social media posts made use of brief video clips of his alleged comments around the 16-minute mark in the C-Span footage, we focused on that portion of his remarks, specifically. At that point, he said, according to the transcript and video footage: "Look, the range of challenges Europe and the United States must take on together is broad and complex. And Im eager to hear  Im eager to hear  Im eager to hear next from my good friends and outstanding leaders, Chancellor Merkel, about her thoughts on the way forward together." While saying "I'm eager to hear," Biden stuttered, repeating the phrase three times. On the third time, the consonant "mmmm" in the word "I'm" blended with the next word, "eager," to make a "mnnm-eager" sound. That was the source of the social media posts' allegations, despite the fact that the hypothetical insertion of the N-word there would be abrupt and confusing, contextually speaking, no matter what the speaker's reason for saying it. A more plausible reason for the president's phrasing in that moment was his speech disorder. On several occasions, Biden has openly discussed his struggle with stuttering over the course of his life. It is a speech impediment and neurological disorder that may result in repetitions (D-d-d-dog), prolongations (Mmmmmmilk), or blocks (an absence of sound), according to the non-profit National Stuttering Association. The instance Munich Security Conference appeared to be a combination of repeating and prolonging phonetic sounds. discussed his struggle non-profit National Stuttering Association In other words, the claim is false  Biden did not use the N-word in that moment, nor at any other time during the virtual speech. The February 2021 posts were not the first to twist Biden's words to accuse him of using the racial slur. During a 1985 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing  when the president was a senator representing Delaware  Biden read out loud portions of a memo by Louisiana legislators that included the N-word, and supporters of former President Donald Trump attempted to frame that moment of Biden reciting other people's words as an example of his alleged racism. See our fact check into the claim here. here This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. For nearly a decade, claims have circulated online that "The Simpsons" television character Mr. Burns, Homer Simpson's boss at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, was based on Jacob Rothschild, a billionaire financier and member of the BritishRothschild banking family commonly at the heart of illuminati-based conspiracy theories. A2015 post from the Instagram account nwoprophecies asserts, for example, that: Rothschild banking family 2015 post Mr. Burns from the Simpsons is modeled after the British Banker, Jacob Rothschild. The Rothschilds are one of the most prominent of the top thirteen illuminati families. The House of Rothschild is in charge of the illuminati's finance. The claim continued to circulate online. A September 2023 post on X, formerly Twitter, asserted the same: post  These claims are baseless. Mr. Burns is based on several American business tycoons  John D. Rockefeller primarily  as well as creator Matt Groening's high school teacher.According to the book "100 Things the Simpsons Fans Should Know Before They Die": According Mr. Burns is [...] wildly and opulently wealthy. A vessel for jokes and ideas about America's history of greed, Mr. Burns was modeled after famous rich American men like John D. Rockefeller, Howard Hughes, the fictional Charles Foster Caine, and Matt Groening's high school teacher Mr. Bailey, the last of whom is probably not a billionaire unless the state of Oregon has really started paying teachers more. In a 2015 article in Fortune magazine, a representative for Groening said that the best source on the inspirations for Mr. Burns was an October 2000 TV Guide story, in which the creator said that "that the twin models for Burns' personality are real-life oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Potter, the miserly banker played by Lionel Barrymore in the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life." 2015 article In that same story, animator David Silverman stated that Mr. Burn's physical appearance was "based on Barry Diller, who was running Fox Broadcasting when The Simpsons debuted on the network in 1989." Silverman added that "Burns' body language is modeled on a praying mantis." added  Barry Diller (Getty Images) In addition to incorrect information about the origin of Mr. Burns, these memes misrepresent Jacob Rothschild's wealth, which stood at just over a billion dollars in 2019. over a billion Because the character Mr. Burns was not inspired by Jacob Rothschild, according to the people who developed it, we rate the assertion as  "A Rothschild Broke From Dynasty and Still Became Super Rich." Bloomberg.Com, 10 May 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-10/a-rothschild-broke-from-dynasty-and-still-became-fabulously-rich. Goertz, Allie, et al. 100 Things The Simpsons Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. Triumph Books, 2018. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/9Wh-aByH80/?hl=en. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023. "Who Is the Real Montgomery Burns?" Fortune, https://fortune.com/2015/03/07/who-is-the-real-montgomery-burns/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023. Claim:  President Obama has proposed a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory in the U.S.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, March 2015] Obama believes voting should be MANDATORYGovernment TELLING you what to do#WakeUpAmerica    Now Obama wants a Constitutional amendment to make voting mandatoryThink about it. Why? Don't mess with my Constitution, just obey it.   Obama proposes a constitutional amendment, making voting mandatory. I wish this were fake, but it's very real.   When a right is forced upon people by law it is no longer a right, but an infringement upon their rights as free citizens #mandatoryvoting  Origins:  On 18 March 2015, President Obama appeared before the City Club of Cleveland at the Cleveland Convention Center to discuss civic issues such as middle-class economics and manufacturing.  In the course of a discussion about the how money influences elections, President Obama mentioned that mandatory voting was one strategy that could be employed to try to offset the of political spending: appeared "Other countries have mandatory voting," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. "It would be transformative if everybody voted  that would counteract money more than anything." The president continued, "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities ... There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." Although he suggested that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible "short-term" solution to the problem of money in politics, President Obama stopped short of actually calling for a constitutional amendment to bring that requirement about, saying only that in the long term it would be "fun" to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment.  Nonetheless, "news" outlets such as the Washington Times published superficial reports of the President's remarks under misleading headlines such as "Obama calls for mandatory voting in U.S." published As of November 2014, there are 11 countries that have and enforce mandatory voting rules, most notably Australia: Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924 after turnout plunged from more than 70 percent in 1919 to less than 60 percent in 1922. By contrast, recent turnout by eligible voters in U.S. presidential election years has barely cracked 60 percent; in midterm elections, it has been hovering in the low 40s. Australians who fail to vote can be fined (or, in theory, jailed for repeated no-shows). Interestingly, the mandate to vote is overwhelmingly popular, with about three-fourths of those polled supporting the requirement. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus opined in a column on the subject that it was unlikely the United States would follow Australia's example: unlikely The United States is not about to go the way of Australia. The same partisan forces that agitate for voter ID laws or less opportunity for early voting hours would block any change on the assumption that it would work to their electoral disadvantage.   Last updated:  19 March 2015    "Mandatory Voting? Obama Says It Would Be 'Transformative'."   Associated Press.  18 March 2015. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II.  Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys.  Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals.  Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish.  (It didn't work.)  The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits.  (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) White Day Green Day However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas.  Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century.  (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is a primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias.  The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it, however.  The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual is reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss.  The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, (both secular and religious) in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,  a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure Santa Claus nailed to a cross.  It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West.  It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. Examples:  A few Decembers ago a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernised and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display, featuring a life-sized Santa Claus, crucified upon a cross.1  The granddaddy of cultural faux pas [in Japan] occurred just after World War II, when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix.2  A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon which had a Santa Claus prominently displayed on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been doing the rounds in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend, is unclear.3  [An American Motorola executive] recounted a famous story of 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and they wanted to capitalize on it.  "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," [he] said. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes."4  A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus.5 However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect.  No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location.    As well, in true urban legend fashion the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling:  Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to  "a few years ago." As well, the mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians.  Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet.  Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity.  As parody it's believable; as an honest mistake we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing.  Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American, dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world economy) by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center.  Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus.  This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997:  Anderson, Walter Truett.  The Truth About the Truth.
  New York: J P Tarcher, 1995.  ISBN 0-874-77801-8. The Truth About the Truth Conry, Kieron.  "A Time Not to Forget the Suffering Figure on the Cross."
  The [London] Independent.  27 December 1994  (p. 15). Gaskell, John and Adam Hock.  "Our Memories of Christmas Past Lost to Japanese."
  The Sunday Telegraph.  6 January 1991  (p. 7). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  "Urban Myths #67: Santa Sleighed."
  The Guardian.  23 December 1993  (p. 43). McCarthy, Terry.  "Christmastime for Everyone."
  The [London] Independent.  19 December 1993  (p. 77). McKibben, Bill.  "Christmas Unplugged."
  Christianity Today.  9 December 1996  (p. 18). McQueen, Anjetta.  "Artist's Crucified Santa Draws Fire."
  Associated Press.  22 December 1997. Shweder, Richard.  "Why Do Men Barbeque?"
  Daedalus.  Winter 1993. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Dashing Through the Dough."
  The Washington Post.  22 December 1995  (p. A21). Watanabe, Teresa.  "Japanese Parade for St. Patrick, Whoever He Was."
  Los Angeles Times.  16 March 1993  (p. 6). Yates, Ronald E.  "Japanese Merrily Leave the Christ out of 'Kurisumasu.'"
  Chicago Tribune.  22 December 1985  (p. 16). The Buffalo News.  "Buffalo's Favorite Santa Stories."
  24 December 1995  (p. M8). The Economist.  "Santa Christ."
  25 December 1993  (p. 77). Financial Times.  "A Cultural Clash of Symbols."
  27 December 1984  (p. 8). Fortean Times.  "Strange Days."
  December 1994  (p. 5). The Hartford Courant.  "Santa on a Cross."
   23 December 1997  (p. F2). In a May 9, 2013, advertisement, Gov. Rick Perry offered President Barack Obama a handy checklist about job creation to take back to Washington, D.C.The ad, which Perrys campaign placed in theAustin American-Statesmanthe day Obama came to Austin to stress economic issues, said the checklist includes low taxes, lawsuit abuse reform, predictable and effective regulations, balanced budgets and accountable schools and a competitive workforce.And an indicator that the Texas model works, the ad said, is that while the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Also, the ad said: Over the last 10 years, Texas created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.Texas has had a healthy economy compared with most other states. Still, we were curious if one in three of the nations net new jobs over the past 10 years was gained in Texas.By email, Perry spokesman Josh Havens referred to information attributed to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicating that Texas reaped more than 1.75 million net new jobs from March 2003 to March 2013, a period in which the United States as a whole accounted for 5.3 million net new jobs, Havens said.To our inquiry, a regional economist for the bureau, Cheryl Abbot, confirmed the net job gain figures provided by Havens. According to aspreadsheetshe emailed our way, Texas topped 42 states with net job gains in the period, considerably outdistancing the No. 2 jobs-gainer, New York, which had a net gain of 458,000 jobs. States with net losses were Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Rhode Island.Among the states, Texas had the third-greatest percentage gain in jobs over the decade, 19 percent, trailing North Dakota (33 percent increase) and Utah (21 percent), the spreadsheet indicates.By email and in a telephone interview, though, Abbot said the bureau steers clear of using its employment estimates to declare how much of any national job gains are attributable to net job gains in individual states. That judgment has to do with technical difficulties comparing the results of surveys undertaken state by state to research intended to have national sweep, she said.Regardless, she said, Texas has been a very powerful job creator; during the period, the state created 1.75 million net jobs  and that was equal to one-third of the net jobs created nationwide, which is slightly different from saying the state accounted for 33 percent of national net jobs gained.We sent Perrys office the bureaus standingcautionary noteabout using its figures to reach conclusions about how much each state contributes to national job gains. Havens replied: The bottom line is, this is the most accurate way available to compare any single states job growth to the nation as a whole.We also tried a different way of gauging the degree that Texas job gains fit the national picture by adding up each states net job gains as estimated by the bureau. This delivered a slightly higher total for national jobs gained, 5.5 million. Dividing the 1.75 million net jobs gained in Texas into the higher total leaves Texas accounting for 32 percent of the nations net jobs gained.We also asked Jason Abrevaya, who chairs the University of Texas Department of Economics, to review the bureau figures. He said by email that they seem to hold up. If Texas had been performing at the average nationwide from 2003 to 2013, he added, one would expect the state to account for roughly 8 percent, rather than 33 percent, of the net job changes, since Texas accounts for about 8 percent of the nations jobs.Our rulingPerry said: Over the last 10 years, Texas created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide. That conclusion is supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government. This might be an imperfect way to explore this facet, but there also don't appear to be better approaches. We rate the claim as True.