We aren't the only state cutting back on public television.
The prospect of clipping the wings of Big Bird came up Feb. 5 when  Richard Licht, Governor Chafees director of administration, made an appearance on ABC6s On the Record with Buddy Cianci.The host, former Providence Mayor Vincent Buddy Cianci was grilling Licht on Chafees proposal to eliminate funding for Channel 36, now known as Rhode Island PBS, the states only public television station.Chafee's proposed budget, crafted to close a projected shortfall of $120 million to $125 million, would cut off funding to the station after Dec. 31, 2012.CIANCI: What have you got against 'Sesame Street'?LICHT: I love Sesame Street. I have grandchildren and I always watched it with all four of my children. Tough times make for tough choices.CIANCI: But 'Sesame Street'? My God.LICHT: Hopefully, Channel 36 will be aggressive, go out and find some good charitable sponsors to help support this.CIANCI (facetiously): Especially in this economy, they're going to just fork over $800,000.LICHT: We aren't the only state cutting back on public television. It's not anything that we're happy about and, again, that's something that might be reversed [if better higher revenue estimates come in], but the facts are, tough times, tough choices.We were interested in whether Licht was correct that other states are cutting back on public television and, if so, how many.We called the governor's office to ask for Licht's source.Meanwhile, we talked to David Piccerelli, president of Rhode Island PBS.The proposal is to fund us through December 31 of 2012 and then shut off funding altogether, he said. In the current fiscal year, the state contributes $922,000 to RIPBS's total budget of $2.9 million. That's 31 percent.Another 27 percent comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund stations throughout the United States. (The CPB itself has been repeatedly threatened with the cutoff of federal funds by conservatives. )The remaining 42 percent comes from fundraising. Piccerelli said about 85 cents out of every dollar raised is from individual donors. Corporate support accounts for no more than 15 cents, down from close to 30 cents on the dollar around 2004-2005, before the Rhode Island economy took a faceplant.Piccerelli said some states HAVE been cutting back their support; Chafee's office sent us information confirming that.Last June,New Hampshire Public Television eliminated20 full-time workers and cut staff salaries by as much as 10 percent after it lost $2.7 million in state funding, or about 30 percent of its budget.At the same time, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, backed by the state legislature,eliminated funding for New Jersey public television, which resulted in the 40-year-old New Jersey Network being taken over by WNET in New York and NJN's nine radio licenses being sold to stations in New York and Philadelphia.Stacey Karp, director of communications for the Association of Public Television Stations, said four other states -- Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania and South Carolina -- have also eliminated funding. For details, she sent us to Skip Hinton, president of theNational Educational Telecommunications Association, a professional association that represents stations in every state.He told us that 38 states were providing direct support to public broadcasting in 2007. It's now down to 32.Of the 32, most have seen pretty significant reductions in state funding over the last four years, he said.At least one state -- Illinois -- increased its contribution to public television, boosting funding by 16 percent last year, following cuts in previous years.Our rulingRichard Licht, Chafee's director of administration, said, We aren't the only state cutting back on public television.Turns out, hes right. Five states have eliminated funding and others have cut their contributions.We rate his statementTrue. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)
Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005. Claim:  The U.S. government has agreed to allow China to exercise "eminent domain" as collateral for American debt.   Example:  [Turner, February 2009] The United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves! On February 11, Bloomberg Business News reported that China was seeking "guarantees" for its US Government debt (Story Here), and it now appears they got it. Well placed senior sources at the US Embassy in Beijing CONFIRM the formal written agreement was delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent trip to China. This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take  inside the USA  land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities  to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The large amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries such as China has long concerned many Americans, and especially so with the current climate of economic turmoil.  As the Washington Post noted: China is the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt, which helped finance the spending binge the United States went on before the current economic crisis. Some experts have expressed concern that China's substantial holding of U.S. debt gives it increased leverage in dealings with Washington because any halt in Chinese purchases would make it more difficult to finance the government bailout and stimulus packages. Likewise, as Bloomberg news reported, some Chinese officals have opined that China should ask the U.S. for some economic guarantees as a prerequisite for additional purchases of U.S. securities: China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar's exchange rate and make sure China's dollar-denominated assets are safe," said He [Zhicheng, an economist at Agricultural Bank of China]. But that's as far as the truth of the item cited in the example block above goes.  The notion that the U.S. has agreed to guarantee its foreign debt by granting China permission to enact "eminent domain" and "physically take land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities" from the U.S. isn't even a sensible claim.   The concept of "eminent domain" in the United States refers to the right of the government to seize private property for public use in exchange for payment of fair market value.  (The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.")  Thus the idea of enacting eminent domain as a form of debt repayment or guarantee isn't logical: It's akin to a debtor's offering to settle a $5,000 debt by agreeing to sell his creditor $5,000 worth of jewelry for $5,000  at the end of the day, the debtor hasn't given up anything, and his creditor still hasn't collected anything on his original loan amount. mandates Moreover, Executive Order 13406 ("Protecting the Property Rights of the American People") states that the the federal government must limit its use of the taking of private property "to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation" and "not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken." 13406 Aside from functional arguments, the common sense test applies: If the U.S. government had actually guaranteed, in writing, that China could seize private property within the U.S. to satisfy the financial obligations of the U.S. government, that information would be the biggest new story of the day.  So who is reporting this news?  Not any legitimate news outlet  the story appears only in the blog of former radio host Hal Turner (who has previously presented fictitious tales of politically outrageous subjects as actual occurrences, such as proffering fake Amero coins as proof of a secret conspiracy to merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada into a single entity) and in hundreds of identical Internet replications. Hal Turner Amero Last updated:  8 March 2009    Corsi, Jerome R.  "Did Hillary Really Pledge U.S. Homes to China?"   WorldNetDaily.  2 March 2009.    Kessler, Glenn.  "Clinton Urges Continued Investment in U.S."   Washington Post.  23 February 2009  (p. A12). In November 2013, South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon unveiled his concept for a "Portal Oxygen Respirator" dubbed Triton, a device that would allow people to breather underwater "simply by biting it," at theSamsung Art and Design Institute (SADI)graduation exhibition: South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon just unveiled a conceptual scuba mask that would allow divers to breathe underwater without air tanks. The mask, called the Triton, consists of two branching arms designed to serve as "gills" that extract oxygen from the water and deliver breathable air directly into their wearer's lungs. Instead of hauling around heavy scuba equipment, swimmers could simply bite down on a plastic mouth piece.  Yeon's concept proved popular, and in March 2014 the web siteInhabitat published an article about the nifty design. Whilethat article correctly described the Triton as a "conceptual scuba mask" and noted that "the design is just a concept" that may "someday be turned into a commercial product," the article'sheadline ("Triton Scuba Mask Transforms Divers into Human Fish") misled some readers into believing that the Triton was a fully developed, workable, real product. headline An IndieGogo page dedicated to raising funds for the project explains how the Triton gills supposedly work: Triton employs cutting-edge technology to produce 'artificial gills'. TheMicroporous Hollow Fiber makesbreathing underwater possible. The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keepwater out and let oxygen in. The micro compressor then extracts and stores the oxygen  allowing youto breathe naturally and revel in your underwater freedom. We are using a very powerful modified micro compressor, it compresses oxygen and stores the extracted oxygen in a storage tank.The micro compressor operates through a powerful modified lithium-ion battery.  However, as more skeptical reports have noted, the Triton is far more concept than product, and not necessarily a concept that will ever be realizable: skeptical   I'm not sold on the Triton. My biggest issue with it is that it would just have to filter so much water to provide all the oxygen a human needs for a single breath. The average human need 500mls of air with every breath; going in, the air has a 21% oxygen concentration and a 16% concentration coming out, for a total of ~25mls of oxygen intake with every breath. Scientific literature places the concentration of oxygen at 6mg/L of ocean water so the Triton would have to go through ... about 6L of water for each breath (assuming our lungs can scrub almost all the oxygen in the air which they don't)? I dont really think it can do that. That being said, finding a way to take oxygen out of seawater is a great idea. But Yeon needs to make this thing go through a lot of sea water very fast before it's actually usable for diving   Yeonuploaded a videoon 20 February 2016 supposedly showing a working prototype of a set of Triton gills, but given the number of cuts in the video (such that the diver is never seen fully underwater for an extended period of time and could simply be holding his breath), it's not possible to determine if the product shown actually works as claimed:  After the release of the promotional video, more articles expressed some of the same doubts about the viability of such a device, and more: articles   There are several raised by experts and commentators about the device: 1) The device has to be able to extract enough oxygen from the water to allow you to actually breath.  This is possible in theory however as pointed out in an article on Deep Sea News in 2014 (when the device first came to light as a concept) it requires not only an incredibly efficient ability to extract the oxygen  which the designers say is down to a new Microporous Hollow Fiber  but also water has to be forced through the device at upward of five liters every 15 seconds which could only be achieved with a pump bigger than the whole Triton design. 2) Next is the issue of storing the gas in a chamber  this would require a compressor and battery "order of magnitude more efficient than anything on the market today".  The makers claim on the website that they have a "very powerful modified micro compressor" but again without any real proof. 3) Let's say theyve managed to crack those two issues the next one is the ability to deliver the oxygen to you in the right amount at the right pressure to be able to breathe.  This is possible as we see it in open-circuit Scuba systems and in Closed Circuit Rebreathers however, again, there is no technology on the market right now that can achieve such a feat in such a small design. 4) Finally there is the video, on face value it looks like there is a working unit, however on close inspection you can see that it is made up of several short clips where the person seems to be getting progressively more negatively buoyant (probably due to expelling air from their lungs to create the "bubbles" from the device) and no clip ever shows a person underwater for longer than one minute.  As we know from Freediving that is not even a difficult breath-hold for most people. All-in-all the possibility of a device such as Triton is not beyond the realm of possibility at some point; sadly, though, the challenges faced by the designers just do not seem to be reasonably solved with technology available today.  The designers would have had to have developed 3 or 4 incredibly efficient and compact new technologies to make this possible.   Other commentators began question whether the Indiegogo campaign to fund development of the Triton gill device might not be a scam, given the extreme scientific unlikelihood that such a device could be built with existing technology and the lack of evidence for Triton's having produced anything beyond a mere concept: scam   Right now, an Indiegogo campaign for a device that its makers claim is "the future of underwater breathing" is raking in cash  more than $600,000 at the time of this post, $100,000 of which poured in over just 24 hours. It's easy to see the appeal of the handheld device, called the "Triton." Diving equipment is heavy and complicated. Meanwhile, the Triton looks seductively simple and the campaign says it "allows you to breathe underwater." But despite the slick crowdfunding campaign, there's no real evidence that this device actually works, multiple experts told Tech Insider. One of them is Neal Pollock, a research associate at the Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Environmental Physiology at Duke University Medical Center, and the research director for the Divers Alert Network  a non-profit organization that helps divers in medical emergencies and promotes dive safety. "In concept it sounds very good and it's very exciting," Pollock tells Tech Insider, but "I would not encourage anyone pulling out a wallet." For the makers of Triton to prove they've invented a device that can actually do what they say it can, Pollock and other experts want to see more evidence; the crowdfunding campaign and Triton website simply don't provide enough to go on. Regardless, Pollock notes the technological challenges involved in creating a device like Triton are so vast that "it's not realistic, it's science fiction."   On 1 April 2016, Triton published an update announcing the release of a new video showing the product in action.  They also disclosed that the Triton requires the use of 'liquid oxygen' cylinders, and that they had decided to refund the donations of all the backers who had contributed to so far and launch a new campaign: update video   Inside of each Triton, the artificial gills utilize liquid oxygen, which combined with the other components allow users to breathe underwater, which you can see in the video above. We will release more information about the liquid oxygen cylinders and safety strap. Note that the liquid oxygen cylinders wont last forever so we plan to make it possible for backers to purchase and exchange cylinders through our website. They will come in packs of 1, 3 and 5, and well list prices as soon as they are finalized. Were also working on a solution to make them refillable. We wanted to share it at the beginning of the campaign but were hesitant because we also wanted to  protect our intellectual property. Our success and the positive comments we have received have made it clear that these details are important for our backers to understand. We launched this campaign to build a community of people who are excited to bring Triton to life, and we are committed to making sure our backers feel confident in our efforts. After careful consideration and in light of this new information, we have decided to refund all Triton backers and launch a brand new campaign. In May 2021, numerous media outlets reported that U.S. President Joe Bidens administration would be waiving sanctions on vessels, corporate entities and the CEO of Nord Stream AG, an international consortium of five major companies overseeing the construction of Russias Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany. However, the administration still expressed opposition to the construction of the pipeline. The claim was originally reported by the news website Axios on May 20, 2021. In the original report, the publication cited two sources who had been briefed on the decision. Axios Snopes contacted the State Department and was told the agency had submitted a report to Congress on May 19 saying the U.S. was lifting sanctions on five entities, four vessels, and Nord Stream 2 AG CEO Matthias Warnig. Unknown at the time of this writing was which specific entities would be waived. These sanctions were currently required under the Protecting Europes Energy Security Act (PEESA).  PEESA Nord Stream 2 is a wide pipeline network of offshore natural gas lines that run under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. The pipelines have largely been opposed by the U.S. and some European nations that believe their creation would increase Russias influence in the region. Under PEESA, the U.S. is granted the authority to advance national security and foreign policy objectives, in particular, to address Russian pipeline projects that use coercive purposes and create risks to U.S. national security, threaten Europes energy security, and that could endanger Europes political and economic welfare. Nord Stream 2 PEESA  Map of the proposed Nord Stream 2. Samuel Bailey/Public Domain  Samuel Bailey/Public Domain   Russia uses its energy export pipelines to create national and regional dependencies on Russian energy supplies, leveraging these dependencies to expand its political, economic, and military influence, weaken European security, and undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, wrote the Bureau of Energy Resources in an April 9 statement. These pipelines also reduce European energy diversification, and hence weaken European energy security. statement A spokesperson for the State Department referred our team to this statement written by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on May 19, 2021. this statement I have determined that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO Matthias Warnig, and Nord Stream 2 AGs corporate officers, wrote Blinken. Todays actions demonstrate the Administrations commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the Presidents pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe. While the Biden administration supported waiving sanctions on some elements associated with Nord Stream AG, the administration maintained its opposition to construction of Nord Stream 2  and that seemed at odds with statements made by Blinken during his Jan. 19 nomination hearing, when he said the administration would do whatever we can to prevent that completion of Nord Stream 2. Jan. 19 nomination hearing, Sanctions are placed on companies that the U.S. determines meet certain criteria/specifications that suggest a danger to national security. The State Department, in conjunction with the Biden administration, can also determine when they want to waive  or temporarily pause the application of  such sanctions. Blinken said that the administration would continue to oppose the completion of the project that it acknowledged would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine, the Eastern flank NATO, and EU countries. However, the sanctions that were waived  not lifted, as some media reports claimed  allowed for the continuation of various transactions and activities involving the Marine Rescue Service, which are unrelated to Nord Stream 2 construction. These activities include a range of search and rescue, environmental, and other missions. Issuance of this waiver also provides space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security, an official with the State Department told Snopes in an interview. In the statement sent to Snopes, Blinken reiterated that the administration would continue to oppose completion of the project. Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering, Blinken continued. Though we may not always agree, our alliances remain strong, and our position is in line with our commitment to strengthen our Transatlantic relationships as a matter of national security. Seventeen-year-old Alyssa Carson has garnered media attention for her determination to be part of a space mission to Mars. But although her desire has been recognized by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), she is not officially in training with that organization to become an astronaut or to take part the first human mission to Mars.  Carson first began generating media attention when she was 12, at which point she had already attended three different space shuttle launches and taken part in NASA space camps in three different countries. She was also the first person to complete the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex's "Passport to Explore Space" program, which requires visiting each of 14 NASA visitor centers across nine different states in the U.S. The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, though, is managed by a NASA contractor and is not funded by the agency itself. attention complete contractor Completing the "Passport to Explore Space" program also led to Carson's being a panelist at an event hosted by NASA and the Smithsonian, marking ten years of exploration by the Mars Exploration Rovers. As well, Carson has her own call sign," Blueberry." panelist Blueberry However, a NASA spokesperson confirmed to us that Carson is not currently training with or being "prepped" by that agency, as some reports have suggested. Also contrary to some reports, NASA's Astronaut Candidate Program has no age requirement for applications, although according to the agency "astronaut candidates selected in the past have ranged between the ages of 26 and 46, with the average age being 34."  prepped reports age requirement In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, which his administration said would "lay the foundation" for a mission to Mars. Carson's father, Bert, told Teen Vogue magazine that private companies have "considered" sending her on missions into space  although not to Mars. signed told "If we can find a mission for her in the next two years, she will be the first kid in the world to go to space," he said. "If we can get it together before she's 20, she'll be the first teenager." One private group, Mars One, has already selected Carson to be one of their ambassadors. Carson  wrote on that group's website about her interest in visiting the Red Planet: wrote I would love to go to Mars because it is a planet that no one has been before. It's about the same size as the Earth and there are ice caps at the top and bottom of Mars. That means there is water on Mars. This could possibly be our next Earth. Just think about all the things that are in Space. For example: planets we have never explored, galaxies that we have never heard of, stars that are just babies, black holes that are as wide as the Sun to Pluto multiple times and has the mass of a billion suns, parts of the universe that we have never seen. Just think of all that stuff just floating around. It's more than you can imagine. Quinn, Katra.  "The Making of an Astronaut."
  Astronaut.com.  6 February 2014. Astronaut.com.  "First Person to Complete NASA's Passport Program Is Astronaut.Com's Friend Alyssa Carson."
  26 November 2013. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  "NASA, Smithsonian Host 10-Year Mars Rover Events."
  6 January 2014. NASA.gov. "New Space Policy Directive Calls for Human Expansion Across Solar System."
  11 December 2017. Krueger, Alyson. "17-Year-Old Alyssa Carson Wants to Be the First Person on Mars."
  Teen Vogue.  21 March 2018. In March 2022, a rumor started circulating online that actor Leonardo DiCaprio had donated $10 million to Ukraine after the country was invaded by Russia. While this claim was repeated ad nauseam across social media, there's little evidence to suggest that it's true. In an article that has since been deleted, the Daily Mail reported: Daily Mail reported Hollywood megastar Leonardo DiCaprio has donated $10million (7.6million) to a fund for Ukraine, where his grandmother was born in 1915. The actor was reportedly very close with his grandmother - Helene Indenbirken - and would take her to premiers of many of his films. DiCaprio would call her 'Oma'. The donation from the 47-year-old was announced by the International Visegrad Fund, according to Polish News. For starters, neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor the International Visegrad Fund (IVF) have made any announcements about this alleged donation. We searched the social media profiles and websites for both the actor and the IVF, an international donor organization that finances grants and scholarships to encourage the "advancement of innovative ideas in Central and Eastern Europe," and found no mention of this alleged donation.  Leonardo DiCaprio International Visegrad Fund Furthermore, this rumor can't be traced back to a reputable news source. While most articles about this alleged donation quoted a report from a website called "Polish News," that March 7 article is not the primary source for this rumor. The earliest iteration of this claim that we could find was published on guyanasouthamerica.gy on March 5, 2022. That article cited anonymous "sources" inside Ukraine: guyanasouthamerica.gy on March 5, 2022 Sources inside Ukraine today, 5th of May, 2022, disclosed that Hollywood superstar, famed for his role in the hit movie Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio, has transferred ten million US dollars to the Ukrainian government as the war rages on between Russia and Ukraine. Presumably, the huge donation is meant to support the war efforts as well as humanitarian efforts within the country. This original report states that DiCaprio donated money directly to the Ukrainian government. This simply doesn't seem feasible, especially without any statements from the Ukrainian government. (We checked. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has not mentioned any multi-million dollar donations from DiCaprio.) The claim that this money was donated to the International Visegrad Fund appears to come from people making big assumptions based on little information. On March 6, a day after the anonymously sourced guyanasouthamerica.gy article was published, the Twitter account Visegrad 24 picked up on the story and published the following tweet. (Visegrad 24 previously shared a false rumor that Pornhub was blocking Russian users from accessing its site). Visegrad 24 picked up on the story and published the following tweet. previously shared a false rumor Pornhub was blocking Russian users from accessing its site   This tweet does not claim that DiCaprio donated money to the International Visegrad Fund. Rather, it says that the money was "donated to Ukraine." It seems likely that people saw this tweet, connected Visegrad 24 to the International Visegrad Fund, and assumed that this is where DiCaprio's alleged donation went.  A spokesperson for the International Visegrad Fund told us that they were unaware of any such donation from DiCaprio: "We are not aware, neither do we have any information about Leonardo DiCaprio donating USD 10 million/7.6 million to Ukraine. International Visegrad Fund has not announced this information." While DiCaprio did not donate $10 million to this fund, the spokesperson did say that prime ministers from V4 countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) agreed on a "support package of 1 million euros to help Ukraine via the International Visegrad Fund." The spokesperson said: I can, however, inform you that the V4 Prime Ministers met in London on 8 March 2022 where they agreed on a support package of 1 million euros to help Ukraine via the International Visegrad Fund. An extraordinary call for applications will be shortly available to NGOs, organisations, and municipalities from the V4 countries and Ukraine with a focus on improving the situation of refugees from Ukraine. While the rumors that DiCaprio donated $10 million to the Ukraine military or the International Visegrad Fund are untrue, the actor really has made a few private donations of unknown amounts to various humanitarian organizations working in Ukraine.  People Magazine reported: People Magazine reported Previous reports claiming the actor had donated $10 million for Ukrainian military use and that DiCaprio has family ties to Ukraine are not true. "Leo had privately made several donations to humanitarian groups  CARE, IRC, UNHCR and Save the Children. All directed at Ukraine," a source close to the Don't Look Up actor tells PEOPLE. "He had been watching things unfold and wanted to support Ukraine the best he could. He will continue to support the humanitarian groups on the ground which are helping the people of Ukraine."   Dickler, Jessica. Heres a List of the Top-Rated Charities to Help the Ukraine Relief Effort. CNBC, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/heres-a-list-of-top-rated-charities-to-help-the-ukraine-relief-effort.html. Examiner, Luke Gentile, Washington. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million to Ukraine. Colorado Springs Gazette, https://gazette.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-donates-10-million-to-ukraine/article_b1faacaa-b309-587c-8905-19f046619474.html. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million to Ukraine. Washington Examiner, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-donates-10-million-to-ukraine. Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10MILLION to Fund for Ukraine - His Grandmothers Homeland | Daily Mail Online. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10593687/Leonardo-DiCaprio-donates-10MILLION-fund-Ukraine-grandmothers-homeland.html. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. REPORT: Leonardo DiCaprio Donates $10 Million To Help Ukraine. https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/09/report-leonardo-dicaprio-donation-10-million-ukraine-russia/. Accessed 9 Mar. 2022. Updated [9 March 2022]: Article updated with statement from DiCaprio's spokesperson about the actor's genuine donations to Ukraine. In October 2017, what appears to be a legitimate news article appeared on Facebook, claiming that Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana in the state of Virginia:   An error-laden article automatically displayed the date on which it was opened, misleading readers into thinking it represented a brand-new development: article Govenor Terry McAuliffe passed a law legalizing the use of recreational and medicinal marijuana for the state of VirginiaAs of November, first 2017 marijuana will be legalOverall support for legalize marijuana has hit 64 30 states in the district of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuanaI knew Gallup poll released earlier this month shows that a record high percentage of Americans now support legalizing marijuana For the first time immaturity of Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana as well Update coming soon The claim is completely false, originating with prank-generating fake news site React365. Although the ostensible purpose of the site is to allow people to "prank" one another with phony articles, overly broad general interest topics such as statewide marijuana legalization often rapidly spreads outside its creator's circle of Facebook followers.  prank-generating fake news React365 In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth   the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True. As U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy suffered numerousvote losses before being elected House speaker by a deeply divided Republican party, many noticed a particular moment with Rep. GeorgeSantos, whowas already under fire for fabricating much of his life story while campaigning for office. On Jan. 5, 2023, on the third day of voting for House speaker, Santos was seen flashing a signal with his left hand that many interpreted as being the "white power" sign. numerous Santos under fire  A number of our readers sent us messages asking if Santos indeed flashed the "white power" signal, which looks like an "Okay" sign defined by the forefinger and thumb making a circle shape with the remaining three fingers splayed out. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the sign was adopted "first by white nationalists, and then by 4chan trolls intent on 'triggering the libs'." Numerous alt-right figures have adopted this symbol over the years, but there are also many instances where innocuous hand gestures were incorrectly interpreted in this way. We have debunked such instances, as well. Southern Poverty Law Center debunked So did Santos intend to use such a symbol? In the C-SPAN video below he is standing with his arms folded, and when it is his turn to vote, he raises his right hand to vote for McCarthy, his left still folded under his chest with the sign visible (watch the5:53:30 mark).It appeared on numerous re-watches that he could conceivably have just been holding his left hand that way, and ended up waving his right hand instead of the left. He walked away very quickly after voting, putting both his hands down to his sides.  Voting for House speaker took around four days and numerous attempts, during which time Santos signaled his support more than once. The photograph below shows Santos casting his vote on Jan. 4, 2023, where he is not using the symbol. Jan. 4, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Jan. 5, 2023, he was seen casting his vote again, this time with his left hand making an "Okay" sign. Jan. 5, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) In both instances, he is clearly intending to cast a vote. In the second instance, we do not know for certain if he is making a white power signal with his left hand. We have reached out to a member of his team, but so far Santos has madeno comment on this. made This did not stop Democrats from criticizing him for making the hand gesture. U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from New York, said: Democrats said    MSNBC host Joy Reid addressed this with the right-leaning media outlet The Bulwark's Tim Miller, saying that Santos appeared to "throw the white-power sign." addressed Miller in turn responded "[...]he might have been holding his fingers together. There's plenty of bad things about George Santos without me reading into his body language." After McCarthy was finally elected as House speaker on Jan. 7, 2023, Santos was also sworn into office. In a statement, Santos said: "Now is the time to put political differences aside, stop the finger pointing, and start delivering results. The work of Congress is not about my personal life, this is about delivering results for my constituents, finding bipartisan solutions, and reversing abysmal policies that have caused some of the worst inflation and crime in our nation's history." said We cannot determine Santos' intentions without hearing from Santos directly, and even then he has shown in the past that his word cannot fully be trusted. As such we rate this claim as "Unproven." Evon, Dan. "Do Pics Show Blackburn Flashing 'White Power Sign' in US Senate?" Snopes, 11 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackburn-white-power/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "George Santos Sworn into Office after Selection of House Speaker." News 12 - The Bronx, 7 Jan. 2023. https://bronx.news12.com/george-santos-sworn-into-office-after-selection-of-house-speaker. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Did George Santos' Website Incorrectly Announce He Was Sworn in to US House?" Snopes, 4 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-santos-sworn-into-house-error/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "Is That an OK Sign? A White Power Symbol? Or Just a Right-Wing Troll?" Southern Poverty Law Center, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Shoaib, Alia. "George Santos Accused of Flashing White-Power Symbol during House Speaker Vote." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-white-power-symbol-speaker-vote-2023-1. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Sprunt, Barbara, and Susan Davis. "Kevin McCarthy Is Elected House Speaker after 15 Votes and Days of Negotiations." NPR, 7 Jan. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.- Elect George Santos Casts His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-casts-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454230622. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.-Elect George Santos Cast His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-cast-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454474088. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014