'Sam's Club Shopper Survey' Email Scam Promises Gift Card or 'Reward'
In May 2023, we reviewed a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" email scam that promised a gift card or "promo reward" worth either $50 or $90, all for taking a short survey. This was not a legitimate giveaway or promotion from Sam's Club. Any online users who followed the link in the email eventually found that this had little to do with Sam's Club, and a whole lot to do with scammers misleadingly roping people into being charged monthly fees for strange subscriptions. The scam starts with the email about Sam's Club. Its subject line read, "Confirmation Needed." The message claimed that a "Sam's Club Shopper Survey" would provide a $50 gift card simply for taking a "30-second questionnaire." The message came from an email address that ended in @sendinblue.com and was routed throughsightbanner.com. A real message from Sam's Club would come from an email address ending in @samsclub.com. The link in the email led through several redirects and ended onherbonlinereward.com. After a short survey, the website presented several options to purchase various products for "free," purportedly with only shipping and handling needed to be paid. None of these items had anything to do with Sam's Club. The "free" products included a RoboKleen Vacuum, iPad Pro, Everclean Portable Vacuum, Hi-Tech Wireless Ear Pods, 5.3K60 Sports Action Cam, Hair Halo Sonic Blow Dryer, Ring Video Doorbell, and a Ninja NeverDull Knife Set. However, just about all of these offers were part of hidden subscription scams, the kind of scam where monthly subscription fees only appear on separate pages within the terms and conditions. Such scams often make no mention of these fees on the checkout page, even in the grand total. Many of them also don't include a box for customers to check off that would indicate they agree to abide by the terms. In this case, the websites that hosted the hidden subscription scams included getqualitysavings.com, getqualityoffers.com, pixelmaxpro.com, peakproductzone.com, qualityexpressshop.com, premiumgadgetbargains.com, and specialtechdeals.com. getqualitysavings.com getqualityoffers.com pixelmaxpro.com peakproductzone.com qualityexpressshop.com premiumgadgetbargains.com specialtechdeals.com The website that hosted the page for the iPad Pro,premiumonlineshopper.com, did not mention subscription fees in its terms. However, the top of the page said in big letters that anyone looking at the page was a "winner." However, at the same time, the very bottom of the page said in very small letters that the user was simply the "winner" of a single entry into a sweepstakes that had not yet ended. premiumonlineshopper.com If any readers believe that they've been scammed by a hidden subscription scam, we recommend calling your credit card company (or whatever financial institution you paid with) immediately to let them know. A new card number may be needed to ensure no more unauthorized charges are placed on the compromised card. Generally, if any readers believe they have been the victim of fraud, we recommendfiling a report with the FTC. filing a report with the FTC Always remember with online scams that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
The holiday shopping season often spurs rumors that retailers use "disappearing ink" on receipts, making it difficult for consumers to use paid-for warranties or return unserviceable merchandise. Some rumors were more broad, involving anecdotal concerns about "disappearing ink" receipts, addressing retailers: I know you are in business to make money. I know that fraudulent returns cut into your profit margin, so you feel the need to tighten up your return policies. I am totally on board with that. BUT, could you please then stop using disappearing ink on your receipts? I just had my baby shower, and EVERY SINGLE gift receipt from your store was so faded, it was barely legible. Then, you tried to give me a hard time because your computers couldn't read the receipts, therefore making my duplicates off the registry unreturnable (but improper registry maintenance is a whole other issue.) To sum up. You require receipts? Then print legible receipts. Thank you. Others were more specific, claiming very clear timeframes30 to 45 daysand practices governed the legibility of receipt ink. Iterations of that sort asserted companies deliberately sought out to ensure that no receipts past a certain point could be used, presumably rendered void when the ink "disappeared" by design: PLEASE READ: Learned something new tonight...I guess you guys need to be made aware of (if you don't already know)...I was informed this evening after making a purchase with an extended warranty from Wal-Mart that I needed to go home and make a photo copy of the receipt and file with the warranty card. I curiously asked why and the lady told me that Wal-Mart now uses disappearing ink. My jaw dropped. So this means after 30 -45 days moving forward, you will no longer have a legible receipt from Wal-Mart for returns or warranty usage or credit card issues. Heads up guys ! This will be a problem for many ! I understand the reason they gave for this action, but it sure makes for a difficult life for the honest folks in this world.   Don't forget to take a picture of your receipts. Disappearing ink is one big snowjob, so be ready for the storm.... 30 days and presto-change o. Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon. 2003 However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains: maintains Walmart will accept a non-receipted return or exchange provided it meets the following conditions: The refund verification process accepts the return.The government issued ID must not be altered and is accepted by Walmart. To return or exchange items without a receipt, you are required to present a valid government issued photo ID. Information from the customer ID will be stored in a secured database of returns activity that Walmart uses to authorize returns. At Lowe's the policy reads, in part: the policy reads, in part In most instances, your receipt can be retrieved by using the original credit card, checking account number, MyLowe's card or by your phone number. For returns without a valid receipt, in-store credit may be issued for the items current selling price. Lost or stolen gift cards can only be replaced for the remaining balance by presenting the original receipt. Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse: notes surveyed Our survey of 12 large retailers policies regarding returning items without a receipt shows most allow it  within limits. Although a staunch no receipt, no return policy is rare, it does still happen, and there can be individual store quirks that make the return process difficult to predict. Store policies tend to be tiered, with full refunds reserved for those who meet the gold standard: They return the entire item, in its original packaging, quickly, with a receipt. The further you vary from the gold standard, the less you get back. Credit card holders may find that using their cards provides an added avenue to a refund, since some retailers will look up a credit card transaction and let you use that as proof of purchase for a return. As to how youll get your money back, its typical for stores to return it in the same way it was tendered. So if you used a credit card, expect to get the money back in the form of a credit on your cards statement. Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons: explained Receipts are typically printed on thermal paper, a chemically coated paper that produces text and image when heat is applied to its surface. Since this kind of paper is susceptible to heat and UV light, extended exposure to these elements will ultimately cause gradual fading. If you are in the mood for experimenting, place a receipt that you dont need under a hot iron for about 10 seconds. The heat from the iron will change the color of paper to black. Oil and humidity are also factors to blame. Now if youre wondering why the use of thermal paper is so widespread despite this massive disadvantage, its because they are very low cost and the equipment used to print it is low maintenance, since it doesnt need ink or ribbon cartridges. That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts: story If you keep paper receipts, this could happen to you, too. That's because more retailers are using thermal paper. Heat and light fades the ink. Although it was clearly true that many receipts faded over time, the claim involving "disappearing ink" was a misnomer. Retailers' well-known reliance on thermal paper due to its cost efficient nature led to the generation of fragile receipts, particularly those exposed to heat or light. The phenomenon was real, but the cause was often misinterpreted by concerned consumers. Early iterations of the rumor also antedated the rise of online retail giants, e-receipts, smartphones with storage capabilities, and other technological advances that served effectively as a "receipt" for consumers. Behnken, Shannon.  "Sales Receipts Have Ink That Fades, Making Returns Harder."
  WFLA.  23 June 2014. Cabrera, Kristen.  "Major Retailers' 2016 Return And Receipt Policies."
  CreditCards.com.  22 December 2016. Walmart Help Center.  "No Receipt Returns In Stores Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Lowe's Service Desk.  "Returns and Refunds Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. CVS.com.  "Returns Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Panda Paper Roll Company.  "Thermal Paper: Why It Fades And How To Restore It."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Fiscally conservative members of the Oregon Legislature never much like the size of the states budget. But once something is funded, its never easy to muster the political willpower to take the cash away.In a recent opinion piece for The Oregonian, Sen. Doug Whitsett, a Republican from Klamath Falls, offered a creative solution: Peg state spending to population growth and inflation.Oregon desperately needs to establish a constitutional limit on the growth of state spending, he wrote. He maintains that the $60 billion all-funds budget is growing out of control.Whitsett noted that the states Legislative Fiscal Office, which keeps a close eye on the budget, had illustrated for purpose of comparisons what Oregons all-funds budget would look like today if his proposal had been implemented 20 years ago.Oregon spent about $20 billion in all-funds budgets 20 years ago, he wrote. With this spending limit in place, the states all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today.Thats a nearly $33 billion difference. A huge amount of money for a state like Oregon. So huge, in fact, that PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know whether Whitsett was right.We spoke with Whitsett, who said that hed gotten this statistic from a presentation that the fiscal office had given at the beginning of the current legislative session. So we called Ken Rocco, the offices director, and asked him if he remembered this.Rocco got back to us via e-mail. He offered two pieces of caution.First: There was no reason in particular that his office chose the budget from 20 years ago to use for their projection.Second: The data the senator had referred to in his opinion piece hadnt been calculated accurately. In looking at this chart, the data presented claimed it was inflating the 1991-93 base year by both inflation and population growth, but when I looked more closely at the data today, it was actually only for inflation.In fact, he noted, if the calculations been done right, the actual 2011-13 budget -- pegged to population growth and inflation -- would be about $36 billion. This was not the Senators mistake, but LFOs, Rocco noted.Nevertheless, the point Whitsett was trying to make -- that spending growth has happened beyond just normal population growth -- remains true, Rocco said. There are a number of other drivers to budget growth than simply inflation and population increases, such as specific caseload growth, additional mandate programs that require funding, etc.Let us point out here that the all-funds budget is just that -- all funds. It includes not only the general fund, which lawmakers can allocate however they choose, but also federal money, bond revenue, gas taxes, fees -- in short, a whole lot of money dedicated for specific purposes.Now, allow us to offer up a slight tangent. Whitsetts idea is not entirely new. Back in 2006, Measure 48 was put on the Oregon ballot. That measure would have limited any increase in state spending to population growth and inflation increases.It turned out, this had nothing to do with what Whitsett was writing about, but we bring it up because it illustrates an important point: Measure 48 didnt apply to things like federal funds. Thats huge given that nearly a fourth of the state budget comes from federal funds.For instance, about $15 billion of the upcoming all-funds budget comes from federal sources -- thats about a quarter of the total. Twenty years ago, federal funds only accounted for about 15 percent of the total. If you were to play by Measure 48s rules and add that chunk of change to the $36 billion that the fiscal office projected, youd get an all-funds budget closer to $42 billion.That, of course would still mean about $18 billion in less budget growth over 20 years. That is no small thing -- but its still a lot closer to the current all-funds budget than the initial $27 billion Whitsett mentioned.Whitsett also pointed out, during an interview, that it would be a mistake to assume the federal government will keep providing a quarter of the states all-funds budget. At some point in time that has to reverse  the current sequester might be a part of that.Whitsett said that if we had curbed budget growth 20 years ago by pegging it to population growth and inflation, our budget would be about $27 billion today instead of $60 billion. He was referring to an inaccurate calculation made by a typically unimpeachable source. The figure is actually closer to $36 billion.We wont hold their error against Whitsett, but we do think its important to note that, if federal funds are a concern at all, our budget wouldnt be quite as slight as Whitsett predicted. We rate this claim Mostly True. Ever since Melania Trump delivered an oddly familiar speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016, the First Lady has been dogged by accusations of plagiarism (many of which were nothing more than fake news). A new batch of allegations surfaced in May 2018, as keen-eyed readers noticed that a pamphlet linked to Trump's new "Be Best" campaign was nearly identical to a document released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2014: familiar speech nothing more fake news   It is true that the "Be Best" campaign linked to a pamphlet that was nearly identical to material published by the FTC in 2014. You can see the FTC's pamphlet, "Net Cetera. Chatting with Kids About Being Online," here, and the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" from the White House here. These two documents are nearly identical (with the exception of an introduction from the First Lady), but it's disingenuous to say that Melania Trump "plagiarized" this material.  here here The main piece of evidence supporting the "plagiarism" charge is that the pamphlet was originally presented on the White House web site as a booklet "by First Lady Melania Trump and the Federal Trade Commission," in reference to the First Lady's having contributed an introduction to the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet.  That wording was soon updated to describe Talking with Kids about Being Online" as "a Federal Trade Commission booklet, promoted by First Lady Melania Trump."  At no point did Melania Trump take credit for (or claim she had written) the entire pamphlet. presented Nearly every page of the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet contains a link to the FTC's web site about Internet safety, and the final page lists web sites for both the Be Best campaign and the FTC's internet safety page: safety   The White House released a contentious statement on 8 May 2018 about the plagiarism accusations: statement Mrs. Trump agreed to add Be Best branding and distribute the booklet in an effort to use her platform to amplify the positive message within. As she said in yesterdays speech, she is going to use Be Best to promote people and organizations to encourage conversation and replication, and helping the FTC distribute this booklet is just one small example. Despite providing countless outlets with ample background, information, and on-the-record comments from the FTC, some media have chosen to take a day meant to promote kindness and positive efforts on behalf of children, to instead lob baseless accusations towards the First Lady and her new initiatives. As stated by Nathaniel Wood, Consumer and Business Education Division Associate Director, FTC, We frequently work with members of Congress, the White House, other government agencies, and the private sector. As a small and independent civil law enforcement agency, the FTC encourages our partners to help spread our message to consumers. We were excited that Mrs. Trump distributed this important information about staying safe online. We look forward to continuing to work with her and others to help parents and children use the Internet safely and responsibly. Our office will continue to focus on helping children and I encourage members of the media to attempt to Be Best in their own professions, and focus on some of the children and programs Mrs. Trump highlighted in her remarks yesterday. Many homeowners are currently receiving receipts stamped Paid in the mail for their 2018 property tax bills. Whether the bill goes up or down each year is of paramount importance to homeowners. So politicians are also eager to weigh in on the issue. Today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Allowing taxpaying to keep more of their hard-earned money has been and will continue to be a top priority, state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, said Jan. 11, 2019 in atweet. Property taxesare levied on most types of real estate -- including homes, businesses, and parcels of land. The amount owed depends on the fair market value of the property, as determined by the local assessor. Is Nygren right? Are property taxes lower today than they were in 2010? The evidence The year 2010, of course, is not an arbitrary starting point. It marks the year Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and when the GOP won full control of the Legislature. Democrat Tony Evers is now in the governors office, after topping Walker in the 2018 election. When asked for backup to the claim, Nygrens chief of staff Nathan Schwanz pointed to a January 2019 report from theLegislative Fiscal Bureauon median property tax payments in the state. The nonpartisan fiscal bureau is considered the gold-standard on such financial and budget issues. Here is its breakdown for the years in question: 2010 - 2011-- $2,963 2011- 2012 -- $2,953 2012 - 2013 -- $2,943 2013 - 2014 -- $2,926 2014 - 2015 -- $2,831 2015 - 2016 -- $2,849 2016 - 2017 -- $2,852 2017 - 2018 -- $2,876 2018 - 2019 -- $2,870 (preliminary estimate)  So, the 2018-19 total is, indeed, lower than the 2010-11 total. The fiscal bureau regularly does such estimates, and they are routinely cited by politicians of both stripes.But its important to note they are an illustration -- some people's property taxes went down, some went up. Even if your home value was right at the statewide average, your tax bill might have been higher due to various factors, including levies in individual communities. Past ratings Meanwhile, we have checked variations of this claim in the past: *July 15, 2015: Walker claimed that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But we found the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. Our rating:Mostly True. *Jan. 13, 2017, Walker said property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. Our rating:True. *June 7, 2017, after a lower than 2010 claim from Walker, we wrote that fiscal bureau estimates of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued home found the tax was indeed lower. That time we found the drop in residential property taxes was due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less revenue. Our rating:Mostly True. Finally, we also used the Walk-O-Meter to monitor a promise by Walker to continue to reduce the tax burden on working families and seniors every year he was in office. This, of course, applied to all taxes -- not just property taxes. We rated the pledgePromise Kept. Are there any wrinkles this time? Yes. According to the fiscal bureau, the change over the latest two years -- from 2017-18 to 2018-19 -- is a net decrease for homeowners, even though the gross tax bill is projected to increase. Whats behind the difference? Funding for the lottery and gaming property tax credit increased by about $66 million, which contributed to the decrease in the median net tax bill. Where Wisconsin ranks To be sure, Wisconsin property taxes remain among the highest in the United States. Various property tax trackers place Wisconsin in the top 10, sometimes in the top five. The personal finance websiteWalletHubanalyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The website also used rates to obtain the dollar amount paid in real estate taxes on a median-valued home in each state. It ranked Wisconsin as the fifth worst state for property taxes. With the median home value sitting at $167,000, the typical tax bill comes to $3,257, according to WalletHub. Filling out the rest of thetop fivefor 2018 were: Median Home valueTaxes New Jersey: $316,400            $7,601 Illinois:  $174,800                  $4,058 New Hampshire: $239,700     $5,241 Connecticut: $269,300            $5,443 Wisconsin: $167,000              $3,257 But Nygrens claim was not about the states rank. So that does not factor into our rating. Our rating Nygren said today, property taxes are lower than they were in 2010. Data from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau shows the statement generally rings true. But there have long been wrinkles on these claims -- from declining property values driving the drop to an increase in commercial and manufacturing property values shifting the burden from homeowners. Those sorts of factors are still in play, this time with tax credits contributing to latest decrease. And the rating is still Mostly True. Claim:  Dr. Walter Williams penned an opinion piece entitled "No Matter What," about President Obama'a inevitable re-election. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April  2011] No Matter WhatBy Dr. Walter Williams Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising. But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term. America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily. You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do. And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated. Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office. Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following: 1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us, 2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that, 3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope, 4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coattails will carry them to victory nationwide, 5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party, 6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics, 7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda, 8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist, 9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly, 10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. - Dr. Walter Williams Origins:  Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980.   However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site: Walter Williams disclaimer We published an article that we thought was written by him and we have subsequently found out it was not. The title of the article we published was "No Matter What" and it was published on April 1. Please be informed that this article was mistakenly attributed to Dr Williams.  We admire Dr. Williams work and the article we published was not written by him and was, in fact, a "phony" that fooled us also. We hope, by way of this explanation, to inform those who took the article as genuine to know that it was bogus and that Dr Williams had nothing to do with the writing of the article entitled "No Matter What" that appeared under the column entitled "A Bad Dream" published on the RiteOn web site on April 1.  We erred in not researching the real source of the article prior to publication and we erred in publishing it. We try within our means to avoid publishing phony material of the sort represented by this article and we are sorry we failed to catch the mistake prior to publication.   Chuck MacNab, Editor and Publisher, RiteOn.org Last updated:  26 April 2011 Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. Claim:  Michelle Obama has demanded that all children in daycare be weighed as a part of her ongoing interest in childhood nutrition.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, March 2015] https://t.co/31ExuXleQH BECAUSE OF MICHELLE OBAMA ALL DAYCARES WILL BE REQUIRED 2 WEIGH CHILDREN. OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING OVER THE KIDS  slo129 (@slo129) March 24, 2015 https://t.co/31ExuXleQH March 24, 2015  Origins:  On 20 March 2015, a rumor began circulating online suggesting that First Lady Michelle Obama had planned a new and intrusive childhood nutrition initiative. According to the rumor, Mrs. Obama had insisted that young children in daycare be weighed and measured for unspecified reasons (somehow pertaining to her initiatives in childhood nutrition): rumor Just when you thought Michelle Obamas nanny state program to force kids to eat healthy couldnt possibly get any worse, it actually does. Not only has the first lady destroyed the spirits of children across the land by tossing out tasty treats from the lunch line, ruining Taco Tuesday, and emptying out vending machines, shes now sending in feds to weigh children in daycare and record the information. One of the rumor's first appearances (which many subsequent iterations pointed to) mentioned the First Lady, but that version made a stronger distinction between Mrs. Obama and the referenced initiative: appearances Bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will weigh and measure children in daycare as part of a study mandated by First Lady Michelle Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. The agency published a notice in the Federal Register on Friday proposing data collection on what meals are served in professional and home daycare facilities and how much physical activity children perform. Aside from assessing how healthy the food in daycare is, the USDA will also check the weight and height of roughly 3,000 children. That article linked to a published notice [PDF] in the Federal Register that described an initiative involving weigh-ins of children at daycare facilities. That program has no link to Michelle Obama (save for her earlier advocacy of the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010), and the linked document explains that only about 3,000 children across the country will be involved in the proposed study. notice So while a nutritional study has been proposed that might collect data (including height and weight measurements) from 3,000 children in daycare, that initiative was not ordered by First Lady Michelle Obama. Moreover, "every child" in daycare is not being weighed; rather the information-gathering is part of a study (not a form of oversight or enforcement) that will involve only a few thousand children. The proposed title of the study is Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings, or SNAQCS.   Last updated:  24 March 2015 Claim:  The accused Boston Marathon bombers attended expensive private schools.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April  2013] Can you tell me where the Boston bombers and their families got their monies?  There is no indication of a job (other than the father at one time being a US gov't employee) and I'm wondering how they got to an exclusive school and higher private education tuitions? Origins:  A number of inquiries from our readers like the one reproduced above suggests there is a common perception that accused Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended expensive private schools, a perception which has prompted many to raise the question of where the money to fund their educations came from (since the brothers apparently had no obvious substantial source of income).  Although detailed information about the Tsarnaevs' finances (and its sources) has not yet been made public, we can dispel the mistaken notion that they received costly private educations. According to various news accounts, the elder brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan (now deceased), attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and tookaccounting classes for three semesters between 2006 and 2008 as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College.  As the school's name indicates, Bunker Hill is a community college (i.e., a  Bunker Hill publicly funded two-year institution) with relatively low tuition rates for local residents. The younger brother, 19-year-old Dzhokhar, is likewise reported to have attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and then studied marine biology at UMass Dartmouth.  Although the names of these institutions might suggest otherwise, neither of them is a private school: Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS) is a public high school (part of the Cambridge Public School District) formed from the 1977 merger of Rindge Technical School and Cambridge High and Latin School, and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (or UMass Dartmouth) is one of the five schools that comprise the University of Massachusetts public university system.  Altogether, public high school, community college, and the University of Massachusetts is about the cheapest educational path a resident of Massachusetts could follow. CRLS University of Massachusetts This isn't to say that the Tsarnaevs' educations were either cheap or completely cost-free: the fees at UMass Dartmouth run over $10,000 per year for Massachusetts residents, and even Bunker Hill Community College's tuition costs a local resident $141 per unit.   And at least one of the brothers (Tamerlan) is reported to have been receiving welfare benefits at one pointHowever, Dzhokhar won a Cambridge City Scholarship in 2011, and either or both brothers might also have received student loans or other forms of financial aid.   fees tuition welfare Last updated:  24 April 2013    CNN.com.  "Timeline: A Look at Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Past."   22 April 2013. On Oct. 22, 2019, a link to an op-ed entitled "Trump's Obama envy is getting even worse" was shared to a number of anti-Trump Facebook groups, such as Anti Donald Trump, original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY, and DEFEAT TRUMP 2020!, along with an alleged excerpt from the article in which the president claimed that former President Barack Obama had written the emoluments clause of the U.S.Constitution: Anti Donald Trump original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY DEFEAT TRUMP 2020! Trump Accuses Obama Of Writing The US Constitution Because He Knows The Constitution Is Very, Very Bad For Me Appearing on Fox and News, Trump accused Obama of writing the Constitution to make him look bad. I know for certain that he wrote the emoluments clause, because he cant stand to see me make so much illegal money, Trump said. Ive said all along, Obama is obsessed with me, Trump said, adding, He will do anything to make me look bad, but it never works and he cant stand to see me winning. Busy day and so much winning. Time for golf.   The text of this Facebook post does not relay a genuine quote from Trump. Trump did not claim that Obama wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution during an appearance on Fox News, nor does this quote appear in the linked op-ed story published in The Washington Post. The Washington Post Trump appeared on Fox News on Oct. 21, 2019, for an interview with Sean Hannity. While Trump mentioned Obama a number of times during that interview, he didn't accuse his predecessor of writing the Constitution, which was written more than 200 years ago.  interview 200 years ago Some readers may have been taken in by the fake quote because it was published a day after Trump described the emoluments clause as "phony."  Vox reported:  reported President Donald Trump is still defending the White Houses decision to host next years G7 summit, a gathering of seven world leaders, at a Miami resort owned by Trumps business  even though he abandoned the plan after it was widely criticized. At a Cabinet meeting on Monday, he blamed the backlash against his attempt to profit from the G7 on you people with this phony emoluments clause, referring to a provision of the Constitution which prevents federal officials from being compensated by foreign governments. While Trump may have called the emoluments clause "phony," he did not claim Obama wrote it. We therefore rate this claim  Millhiser, Ian.  "The Emoluments Clause, Explained for Donald Trump."
  Vox.  22 October 2019. Robinson, Eugene.  "Trumps Obama Envy is Getting Even Worse."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. In 2014 and 2015, two people associated with an anti-abortion organization called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, posed as fetal researchers for a fake company called Biomax in order to gain entry to National Abortion Federation conventions. The pair's goal was to gather evidence that Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, were selling tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. (Although it is unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it is legal for patients to donate extracted material for medical research, and for providers to receive reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue as part of the donation process.) The CMP subsequently posted videos online which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussion related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures. videos sell fetal tissue A text meme circulated during the 2020 presidential campaign held that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (who by 2020 was a U.S. senator and a Democratic vice presidential candidate) had unfairly prosecuted the CMP "journalists," while taking no action against Planned Parenthood for "selling aborted baby parts":   That meme was both inaccurate and misleading. It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California  for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states  but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. (Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations.) reported On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood, but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification. indict In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others, to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent. lawsuit In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020. added remain current Although then-Attorney General Harris was involved with the initial investigation of Daleiden and Merritt, she had left that office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate two months before charges were first brought against the pair by her successor, Xavier Becerra. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. The [Davis] Vanguard.  "Criminal Case against Anti-Abortion Activists David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt to Move Forward."
  31 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "Case To Go Forward Against Two Antiabortion Activists Who Recorded Conversations."
  San Francisco Chronicle.  29 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "California Files More Charges Against Antiabortion Activists."
  SFGate.  7 July 2017. Fernandez, Manny,  "Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video."
  The New York Times.  26 July 2016. Williams, Juliet.  "Planned Parenthood Awarded $2.3 Million for Secret Videos."
  Associated Press.  15 November 2019.