Did U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell Increase His Net Worth by 'Nearly $2.4 Million Every Year for a Decade'?
In late February 2019, a misleading meme was circulated on Facebook that led viewers to ask whether U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had mysteriously amassed vast wealth in yearly increments to the tune of $2.4 million while in office:   As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that  information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes: salary  Although the meme and the campaign ad upon which it was likely based were set up to make it seem as if McConnell's wealth increase were the result of his role in the Senate and thus involved unethical or illegal activities, most of his net worth actually derives from his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who hails from a wealthy business family and married McConnell in 1993. Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012. chairs gift According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife: 2008   As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007: reported Thats almost a sevenfold increase in 10 years. McConnell has quadrupled his net worth since 2007, when it was $7.8 million. So what happened in 2008? His financial disclosure form tells the storysuddenly there appeared a tax-exempt money market fund, valued at between $5 million and $25 million, listed as a gift from a filers relative. (Look at Line 2 and then Line 3.)   Indeed, a McConnell spokesman confirms that this was an inheritance for McConnells wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, after her mother died in 2007. Chao, who married McConnell in 1993, earns significant income on her own, serving on corporate boards, and has at least $1 million in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund. (Since these shares are in her name, McConnell only needs to report they have a minimum value of $1 million.) The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million. 2015 Kessler, Glenn.  "How Did Mitch McConnells Net Worth Soar?"
  The Washington Post.  22 May 2014. Newmyer, Tory.  "The Secret to Mitch McConnell's Millions."
  Fortune.  20 March 2014.
On 22 April 2019, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the city's "Green New Deal," an "audacious plan to attack global warming on all fronts." While this package of investments and new legislation covered several approaches to reduce emissions by nearly 30 percent by the year 2030, a number of outlets focused their headlines on one specific fast-food item: hot dogs.  announced An article published on iHeartRadio's platform, for instance, was misleadingly entitled "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate." As this article and others like it circulated on social media, many viewers apparently stopped reading after the headline and came away with the belief that hot dogs had been banned city-wide: published circulated social media stopped   One Twitter user wrote: "NYC Mayor - you just made enemies of a lot of NYC vendors who sell great hot dogs, the citizens & visitors who love them! Repeat: You will make NYC a ghost town by 2030 if you continue this ridiculous green deal! New Yorkers, speak up!" wrote Hot dogs are not being banned in New York City. Headlines such as "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate" are misleading for two reasons. First, hot dogs are not being banned throughout the city. The city government plans to reduce the purchase of processed meats consumed at city-run facilities, such as hospitals, public schools, and correctional facilities, but this policy will have no effect on vendors, restaurants, grocery stores, or any other privately owned businesses that sell hot dogs, or on their customers who eat them.  Second, the city's plan to reduce the consumption of hot dogs is only partly based on an effort to "improve climate." NYC's "Green New Deal" policies are part of the city's "OneNYC 2050: Building a Strong and Fair City" strategy. While these policies address climate-change issues, they also deal with community well-being and the general health of the city's population. The section of OneNYC 2050 dealing with processed meats can actually be found in the "Healthy Living" portion of this strategy. More specifically, the section dealing with processed meats explains that reducing the consumption of hot dogs will lower the risk of heart disease and cancer. OneNYC 2050 Here's the relevant section of OneNYC 2050 (emphasis ours): section ADOPT MORE SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PRACTICES IN CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS The City will shift away from goods that have an outsized impact on the environment and identify opportunities to reduce waste and cut GHG emissions throughout City government. Through updates to our Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) and executive action, we are ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, reducing the purchasing of beef, and phasing out the purchasing of processed meat. Single-use plastic foodware  including straws, cutlery, cups, plates, bowls, and trays  are designed to be used once and then thrown away. These petroleum-based products are a threat to our neighborhoods, waterways, and climate. The City is ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, switching to compostable, reusable, or recyclable alternatives while maintaining a sufficient supply of single-use plastic foodware for those who need it. And we will work with City Council to expand these requirements to private businesses. Building on the success of implementing Meatless Mondays at all New York City public schools, the City will reduce the purchasing of beef by 50 percent. Beef has a relatively high environmental footprint compared to poultry, pork, and plant-based foods. Beef cattle, managing manure, and manufacturing fertilizer produces nitrous oxide and methane, two climate-warming pollutants 298 and 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, respectively. Processed meat consumption is linked with increased risk of cancer and is often high in saturated fat and sodium which is linked with heart disease. This policy would offer health benefits to the most vulnerable New Yorkers. So New York City plans to reduce the consumption of processed meats at city-run facilities such as hospitals, public schools, and correctional facilities. But this plan will not "ban" hot dogs in the city. Restaurants, hot dog stands, grocery stores, and other privately owned businesses will still be able to sell hot dogs in the city.  Moore, Deanna.  "NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate."
  v1017.iheart.com.  23 April 2019. NYC.Gov.  "Action on Global Warming: NYC's Green New Deal."
  22 April 2019. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. In September 2022, some social media users shared a quote erroneously attributed to actress Marilyn Monroe: "If you cant handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell dont deserve me at my best."  The quote has also been attributed to the "Some Like It Hot" star in a longer form: "I'm selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I'm out of control, and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best." longer form  As of this writing, we have been unable to locate the original source of the quote  but we found no evidence that it was said by Monroe. One source claimed in 2013 it was a line of dialogue from the 1953 noir film "Niagara," though we searched the screenplay at Scripts.com but didn't find any such dialogue there. We also viewed the portion of the movie Monroe is in, but Monroe's character Rose Loomis never makes the remark. screenplay According to Dictionary.com, the quote has been online for many years, since the 2000s, and hasn't always been attributed to Monroe. It has often been used in "before" and "after" or "best" and "worst" memes. Here's one example without attribution, posted by pop superstar Mariah Carey in 2018: Dictionary.com posted by  Falsely attributing pieces of faux internet wisdom to famous people is a common occurrence. Recently, we reported actor Morgan Freeman never made a remark widely credited to him. Another popular quote widely misattributed to Monroe read, "Well-behaved women seldom make history." never misattributed Although fascination with Monroe has remained fairly constant since her lifetime, there may be renewed interest in September 2022 because of the release of a controversial Netflix movie titled, "Blonde." The movie is based on a 2000 novel of the same name by Joyce Carol Oates. controversial novel 4 Marilyn Monroe Quotes Youre Taking The Wrong Way. Thought Catalog, 3 Mar. 2013, https://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-shock/2013/03/4-marilyn-monroe-quotes-youre-taking-the-wrong-way/. If You Cant Handle Me at My Worst Meme | Meaning & History. Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/if-you-cant-handle-me-at-my-worst/. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Lemire, Christy. Blonde Movie Review & Film Summary (2022) | Roger Ebert. Https://Www.Rogerebert.Com/, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blonde-movie-review-2022. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Niagara Movie Script. https://www.scripts.com/script.php?id=niagara_14741&p=14. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Showalter, Elaine. Joyce Carol Oatess Blonde Is the Definitive Study of American Celebrity. The New Yorker, 13 Apr. 2020. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity. On March 23, 2021, shipping traffic through Egypt's Suez Canal was grounded to a halt after a large vessel called the "Ever Given" got stuck in the passageway. Shortly after news broke about this blocked shipping route, an image started to circulate on social media that supposedly showed how the Ever Given, a nearly 200-foot wide, 224,000-ton vessel, had "drawn" a penis in its route movements shortly before it entered the Suez Canal:   This is a genuine image showing the Ever Given's route before it got stuck in the Suez Canal. While it may resemble a rough drawing of a penis, there's no evidence to indicate that this was "drawn" on purpose. The image comes from a video created by the vessel-trafficking service provider VesselFinder.com. The video shows the movements of the Ever Given as it waited for its turn to enter the Suez Canal. Vessel Finder wrote: VesselFinder.com On the occasion of the disputed incident of the ultra-large container ship Ever Given blocking the Suez Canal, the VesselFinder team made a video simulation of the movements of the ship in more detail, for some time before it got stuck in the canal and blocked the main artery of cargo flow between Asia and Europe. Here's the video:  While some social media users may have been skeptical of this image, thinking that it was just a crude joke, a spokesperson for Vesselfinder.com confirmed to Vice that the route was genuine, adding that "there is no room for some kind of conspiracies or false data." Vice Another map from the ship-tracking website Myshiptracking.com also shows the Ever Given's seemingly NSFW route.  map Myshiptracking.com CNN reported on March 24 that eight tugboats were working to free the vessel, but that it could be days before the Suez Canal, one of the world's busiest shipping routes, returns to normal traffic levels: reported Eight tug boats are working to free a large container ship stuck in Egypt's Suez Canal, halting marine traffic through one of the busiest and most important waterways in the world. The rescue boats are working to float and release the Ever Given, a 59-meter-wide (193.5-feet) vessel that ran aground after 40-knot winds and a sandstorm caused low visibility and poor navigation, the Suez Canal Authority said in a statement Wednesday. The 224,000-ton vessel, sailing under a Panama flag, was en route to the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands when it was knocked off course. In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was coming around to the idea of a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and considering restarting construction on it. Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Charlie Kirk below-displayed Facebook post another foot of wall   While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." executive order dubbed As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing  about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press said Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. news reports Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. article Alejandro Mayorkas It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). Business Insider According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: 'The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished,' he said. He said those parts include 'gaps,' 'gates,' and areas 'where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.' Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. order It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: White House transcript C-SPAN video Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop for a plan  its paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds.  When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits  and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it  by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues.  Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is  it is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused. The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript.  C-SPAN White House transcript "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We dont believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall as an answer to addressing the challenges  immigration challenges at the border.  Theres a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but its currently paused and  for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." tweeted @POTUS  In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown -- no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is urging Congress to pass legislation to deal with Puerto Ricosdebt crisis, saying that without action the economy and welfare of the U.S. territory will continue to deteriorate. During an interview on the Bloomberg network, Lew said that Puerto Rican hospitals are ill-equipped to deal with the spread of the Zika virus, that schools are closing and that the failing economy is driving people out. You have broad economic stress causing people to leave the island, Lew said May 3, 2016. Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. For an island with a total population around 3.5 million, thats a serious exodus. We decided to see if Lew was right. Looking at the data Census data showsa small, but steady increase in the number of people leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland. More than 360,000 people went from Puerto Rico to the United States btween 2010 and 2014. However, the Census data isnt out for 2015, which is the year Lew was talking about. So where did Lew get that figure? The estimate comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation, which tracks passengers departing from and arriving to the island. The Treasury Department has relied on this databefore, according to department spokesperson Daniel Watson. The data show about 90,000 more people left Puerto Rico for the United States than came in. *The American Community Surveyshowing total out-migration of Puerto Rico to the US mainland **T-100Domestic Market Data(US Carriers) None of this data includes people leaving Puerto Rico for somewhere other than the United States. Islanders mostly tend to head to the mainland, however, countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic and Spain have been attracting Puerto Ricans as well. So the total number of migrants leaving the island is actually larger. Recent qualitative interviews by researchers from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies found that the people leaving Puerto Rico in the greatest numbers are nurses, paramedics, police officers, teachers, college professors and lawyers. They are often recruited and going to states with growing Hispanic populations in need of bilingual professionals. The surge in departures has led to the social media tag #yonomequito (I am not going anywhere). On Facebook this movement has been liked by70,000 people. Our ruling Lew said that almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While thats not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States. Lews statement is Mostly True. 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). On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 Pat Sajak's daughter was purportedly featured in an online advertisement with the "Wheel of Fortune" host. At least two children were visible in the misleading ad, which had been displayed since at least February 2021. Pat Sajak's   It read: "[Photos] Pat Sajak's Daughter Looks Like Her Iconic Mom." However, this was misleading. The picture in the ad did not feature his daughter. The real story behind the photograph was published by the Chicago Tribune in 2019. We blurred the faces of the children for this story, since their parents likely did not provide permission for the improper use of the photo. The caption read: published Celebrity Spokesperson Pat Sajak, pictured with children who have benefitted from services provided by the Hope Institute, continues to support the raffle which raises critical funds for children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities in Illinois. (Posted By olliealexander, Community Contributor) Readers who clicked the misleading ad were led through hundreds of pages of a slideshow article. Its headline was: "Celebs and Their Parents at the Same Age - They Inherited Their Parents Good Luck & Their Credit Score, What a Bargain!" It was published by the Mortgage After Life website. article The first page of the lengthy story featured Heidi Klum. Under the photos of the model and businesswoman was the all-caps text: "CLICK NEXT TO SEE PAT SAJAKS DAUGHTER WHO LOOKS JUST LIKE HER MOM." first page Pat Sajak and his real daughter finally appeared on page 101. This meant that readers would need to click "next page" around 100 times to reach the promised reveal. page 101 Pat Sajak is a TV star, ex weatherman, and talk-show and game-show host, known mainly for hosting the game show Wheel of Fortune. He has been hosting the show since 1981. Pats wife is Lesly Brown Sajak, a photographer and they have 2 kids  their son Patrick (born in 1990), and their daughter Maggie (born in 1995). Maggie Sajak is an upcoming country musician. Her musical style draws comparisons to Sheryl Crow, Carrie Underwood, Jewel & Eva Cassidy. If Maggie inherited her fathers showbiz skills shell definitely become a huge star. Pat Sajak's real daughter is named Maggie. The American country music singer appeared on "Wheel of Fortune" in January 2020: singer  Game show television hosts have been a fixture of such misleading online advertisements for years. Their familiar faces likely made them a solid pick for clickbait advertisers because they appear trustworthy to many readers. This was true of both Sajak and the late Alex Trebek, who was the longtime host of "Jeopardy." He was also featured in misleading ads that led to lengthy slideshow articles. Viewers have invited both Sajak and Trebek into their living rooms every weeknight for decades. To some, they may have felt like members of the family. featured In sum, a misleading online advertisement did not show Pat Sajak posing with his daughter. The photograph actually showed Sajak posing with children who have benefited from the Hope Institute. Hope Institute Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us