Is George Soros providing financial support for debit cards distributed by the United Nations to refugees?
In November 2018, various conspiracy-pushing web sites glommed onto a dubious post emanating from Europe to gin up hysteria about both refugees and the United Nations. The original story, published on the right-wing Slovenian website Nova24TV, "revealed" that immigrants were spotted in Bosnia and Herzegovina using MasterCard debit cards and included an accusation sourced to an anonymous "local police officer": Migrants who are caught and sent back, in a few days or weeks again try to illegally enter Croatia. Some of them are really poor, but many of them are well-equipped: they have new footwear, new clothes, sophisticated smartphones, and some also have MasterCards with no names, just numbers. The cards can be used to withdraw money from ATMs, but we do not know who funds them. The story also included a stock photograph of young black men who had no relationship to the events described in the article, alongside the caption "The image is symbolic":   The "report" was soon picked up by equally dubious websites, some of which included the same image without mentioning that it was a stock photo used only for "symbolic" purposes: Now the mystery has been solved regarding how so many poor migrants have been able to fund their illegal journeys to Europe. The UN, EU and Soros, in partnership with MasterCard, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars providing migrants with prepaid debit cards -- and European tax payers have not been informed that their taxes are being spent on handouts to illegal immigrants.   What those sites did do, however, was expand on the original story by employing a familiar anti-Semitic dog whistle and attempting to tie the claim to liberal billionaire George Soros by falsely citing Nova24TV's piece -- even though it did not mention him -- and saying that the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) was working "in cooperation" with Soros. familiar In reality, these posts conflated an existing United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) program with a separate humanitarian partnership involving Soros and the credit card provider MasterCard. The UNCHR's program was launched in Moldova in 2011 and expanded in 2016. That program provided aid to 10.5 million people across 94 countries between 2016 and August 2018, with recipients accessing their money via cash machines or "mobile money" electronic payments distributed through specialized cell phones: launched expanded Vulnerable persons fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in Moldova can now use debit cards under a new UNHCR initiative to expedite the distribution of the agencys monthly subsistence allowances. Moldova is the first country in Europe where the UN refugee agency has implemented the debit card scheme to streamline the distribution of its monthly financial support via Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). The new card scheme was launched by UNHCR, in cooperation with BCR Chisinau S.A. It enables needy refugees, asylum seekers and beneficiaries of humanitarian protection to receive convenient debit cards which they can use to withdraw the monthly support. UNHCR is very pleased to launch this initiative in Moldova as it enables people to withdraw funds at nearby bankomats at their convenience rather than having to commute to a central distribution point to collect the allowance, said Peter Kessler, UNHCRs representative in Moldova. Refugees have often suffered indignities and find it difficult to integrate in a new, safe host country, he added. Having these cards is another step towards helping them more actively participate in daily life and maintain a greater degree of dignity. The sums being distributed to beneficiaries of the UNHCR initiative are modest, currently not more than 500-600 Moldovan leu (30-36 euros) per person each month. Experienced aid workers -- including staff of the Ministry of Interiors Refugee Directorate, UNHCR and its implementing partners -- meet regularly to review applications for assistance. Recipients of the cards were pleased to get bankomat access and avoid having to pay for city buses to go and collect their monthly support. Asylum-seekers only receive social support for six months under the UN scheme while they await their decisions. However, refugees and beneficiaries of humanitarian protection may be assisted for longer periods if they are sick, are persons with disabilities or are elderly or unemployed. One of the most important benefits is that the debit cards will also give the recipients access to bank accounts, where they may eventually save money and earn interest. The UNCHR initiative was unrelated to either of two similar separate MasterCard-sponsored aid programs. The first, a June 2016 partnership between the credit card company, the Serbian Ministry of Labor, and the humanitarian group the Mercy Corps, sought to provide prepaid debit cards to refugees to help meet basic needs: partnership humanitarian The global organization Mercy Corps launched the pilot program in partnership with MasterCard and the Serbian Ministry of Labor to distribute prepaid debit cards to eligible refugees traveling through Serbia. Families received cards with a value of about $235 (210 Euros), and individuals approximately $78 (70 Euros). The money could be used to make purchases that help meet immediate needs. It was the first such program in the region to use an international cashless payment mechanism to help the tens of thousands of refugees and migrants seeking haven in Europe. By leveraging our technologies and products such as MasterCard Aid Network and Prepaid, MasterCard collaborates with partners to provide essential services at the most critical times of refugees lives. To date, MasterCard Aid and Prepaid cards have been deployed in humanitarian responses across Africa, Asia and Europe  in countries such as Turkey, Kenya, Yemen, Nepal, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Niger, the Philippines, and Greece  and are on-track to support thousands of beneficiaries ... we are working with Mercy Corps to provide assistance to thousands of refugees in Europe to cover their basic needs and allow them to live with dignity during one of most difficult times in their lives. A separate partnership between MasterCard and Soros to launch a "standalone entity," Humanity Ventures, was first announced in January 2017. That program sought to provide private sector solutions to social issues such as joblessness, lack of access to healthcare, inadequate education, and financial exclusion among migrants and their host communities: announced Operating as a standalone entity, Humanity Ventures would initially combine solutions designed to expand access to healthcare and education, foster local economic development and entrepreneurship, and enhance the delivery of aid. One such solution is the Mastercard Aid Network, an award winning digital voucher platform designed in partnership with humanitarian organizations. With the creation of Humanity Ventures, Soros could invest up to $50 million to make these solutions even more scalable and sustainable. The social enterprise could also serve as an incubator and accelerator for smaller projects committed to mitigating the migration crisis. Designed to combine the need for business returns with social impact, Humanity Ventures would also act as a new model for how civil society, governments, and the private sector improve quality of life and drive economic growth. Migrants are often forced into lives of despair in their host communities because they cannot gain access to financial, healthcare and government services. Our potential investment in this social enterprise, coupled with Mastercards ability to create products that serve vulnerable communities, can show how private capital can play a constructive role in solving social problems, said George Soros. Humanity Ventures is intended to be profitable so as to stimulate involvement from other businesspeople. We also hope to establish standards of practice to ensure that investments are not exploitative of the vulnerable communities we intend to serve. The UNCHR has been involved with a program to provide cash to refugees via debit cards to help meet immediate needs, and George Soros has been involved with a program to assist migrants in partnership with MasterCard, but Soros is not funding the distribution of MasterCard debit cards to refugees via the United Nations. Pavlov, Liliana.  "Vulnerable Refugees Get ATM Cards Under New UNHCR Scheme."
  United Nations Refugee Agency.  23 March 2011. United Nations Refugee Agency.  "UNHCR: Programmes for Direct Cash-Aid to the Displaced Reaches Record $430m in 2016."
  16 December 2016. United Nations Refugee Agency.  "Cash Assistance Gives Refugees the Power of Choice."
  28 August 2018. Grimes, Marisa.  "MasterCard Prepaid Debit Cards Provide Refugees with Mobility, Flexibility and Dignity."
  MasterCard.  20 June 2016. MasterCard.  "Mastercard and George Soros to Explore Private Sector Solutions to Societal Challenges."
  19 January 2017.
In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet   "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals:  authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine.  "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!"
  25 June 2017. Lokalo.de.  "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!'  Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An."
  17 March 2018. Claim:  The 'Codex Alimentarius' will eliminate U.S. consumers' rights to purchase and use vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.     : In June 2005 the U.S. was forced to accept Codex Alimentarius regulation of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.  OUTDATED: Bills proposing the regulation of dietary supplements are currently before Congress.  : In June 2010, President Obama signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law by Executive Order. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005. The CODE includes:(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval. CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg  all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed. The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization. Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at this late hour? (1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at https://www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com and www.alliance-natural-health.org.(2) Oppose bills S. 722 and H.R. 3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.(3) Support H.R. 1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution over CODEX, etc.(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives (They got us into this!) ASAP.(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government.(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need helpfinancially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998  Vol. 279, No.15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found to beextremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals  none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day? Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225www.pulseplus@earthlink.net Origins:  This e-mailed alert began circulating on the Internet in January 2005. Although the call to arms is worded in such a way as to convince those who receive that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it, it is outdated and the facts of what is being considered by American lawmakers and why are radically dissimilar from the red cape being waved.  First of all, this is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress.  Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed.  They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress. S. 722 H.R. 3377 Moreover, neither of these items of potential legislation was forced on the U.S. by an outside regulatory body, nor did they say anything about restricting the American public's access to vitamins and minerals. Their sole target was dietary supplements, a class of products that has been unregulated since 1994, when Congress passed legislation that exempted them from federal regulation. Claims that your right to take vitamins and minerals is about to be impaired or that you will require doctors' prescriptions to obtain such products should be regarded as attempts at rabble-rousing, deliberate moves to spur you into action against one thing by convincing you that something very different and far closer to your heart is at stake. Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous. If you take nothing else from this article, take the preceding three sentences. Despite their presence on store shelves, not all dietary supplements are safe for consumers to use, let alone are beneficial to their health. Products can be 100% natural yet deliver a deadly payload, as have some in the past. Lacking regulation of such ingestibles, there is no protection afforded consumers, and  authoritative-looking labels are no guarantee that what is being vended in those bottles they envelop is not harmful. Under current law, dangerous supplements get onto the market and stay there, with serious physical harm resulting among those who use them, as was the case with ephedra, which caused strokes, heart attacks, and upwards of 150 deaths before the Food and Drug Administration was finally able to get it out of the stores. In 2004, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, almost one in five Americans (19%) reported using a supplement, which means the pool of folks at risk is great. Yet the incentives are there for the dietary supplement industry to keep on doing what it has been doing: in 2002, it reported $18.7 billion in sales. With so much profit at stake, there is little desire on the part of manufacturers to police themselves or their products all that carefully.  It's not just about inherently dangerous substances being sold to the unwary as the latest miracle answer for what ails them  even when dietary supplements contain nothing obviously harmful, the current lack of regulation results in improperly manufactured or contaminated products reaching the public. Quality control is missing. Absent regulation, consumers have little reason to trust they are getting the dosage they believe they are taking. ConsumerLab.com, an independent laboratory that tests dietary supplements, found that some name-brand products contain only small quantities of the active ingredient on their label. "Some have none, some have 80 percent, some have 20 percent," Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of the lab, told ABC News. Also, some contaminated supplements reach the market and thus fall into the hands of unknowing consumers. In December 2004, pesticide was found in ginseng being vended on the East Coast, and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic were discovered in herbal supplements. Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them. The bill also looks to close a loophole in current law that, according to Senator Durbin, "has been exploited by many dietary supplement manufacturers, allowing anabolic steroids to be sold widely as dietary supplements" by clarifying that anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and are subject to regulation that restricts their availability under the Controlled Substances Act. S. 722 In October 2003, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (DMI) introduced bill H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would increase the FDA's authority over dietary supplements, enabling that agency to monitor the health risks of dietary supplements and take appropriate action if problems develop. The proposed law was not intended to have any impact on the regulation of vitamins and minerals, which are specifically excluded from the bill. In addition, for dietary supplements that contain herbs, amino acids, and other botanicals, the bill will ensure that FDA has basic information about who makes them and the products' ingredients. It would also require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide FDA with information about all adverse events, so that the agency could spot warning signs and investigate if necessary. It further allows the FDA to prohibit sales to minors of supplements that may cause significant harm to children. Finally, it allows the FDA to demand safety information from a manufacturer if the FDA has evidence that a particular supplement may pose serious risks.  H.R. 3377 Getting back to the e-mail's claim that a foreign regulatory body is behind all this, we address the claim that: Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. It is the body of government representatives and non-governmental organizations charged by the United Nations with establishing a reference for  international guidelines on food law.  However, it has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary; no country is obligated to adopt them. In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and presented its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005.  The Codex guidelines form a reference point that may be used in cases of international trade disputes in the area of food supplements. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of its teeth. Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements In the latter half of 2010, erroneous claims began to circulate claiming that President Obama had signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law via Executive Order.  In fact, the referenced order simply  in accordance with recently passed health care reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)  established the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council within the Department of Health and Human Services in order to provide federal coordination and leadership of "prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the U.S."  The council so established has no specific power or mandate to regulate the sales of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements. Executive Order Barbara "vitaminimized" Mikkelson Additional information:      Codex Alimentarius  (World Health Organization)  Last updated:  15 August 2010    Sumner Burstyn, Barbara.  "Conventional Medicine Far Riskier Than Supplements."   The New Zealand Herald.  16 July 2003.    Community Pharmacy.  "Ruled Maximum Levels for Vitamins and Minerals."   12 August 2004.  (p. 5).    Europe Agri.  "International Agreement Reached on Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals."   16 November 2004.    Lincoln Journal Star.  "Regulation Needed for Supplements."   31 January 2005.  (p. B4).    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  "Judge Allows FDA Ban of Dietary Supplement."   13 April 2004.  (p. A6).    Nutraceuticals World.  "Reps. Davis, Waxman & Dingell Introduce Legislation."   December 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 8.    Nutraceuticals World.  "Senator Durbin Introduces Bill to Amend DSHEA."   May 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 5, p. 8. Claim:  Destructive act is conveniently blamed on household pet. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1993] Their mother had baked a Dutch apple pie for a special event. She left it on the kitchen table to cool while she ran an errand, warning the boys not to touch it. But the pie smelled wonderful, and the boys couldn't resist a tiny bite. One bite became several, until a major chunk of the pie had been eaten. They then heard their mother's car pull into the garage, and they knew they were trapped unless they could quickly cover up their crime. The future lawyer got a brilliant idea. He grabbed the family cat and shoved its face into the pie, smearing its whiskers with gooey filling and crumbs. His mother walked in, looked at the cat, and saw what she interpreted as guilt written all over its face. She immediately grabbed the cat and threw it out the back door into a stream that ran behind the house.  [Brunvand, 1989] I recently heard about a friend of a friend  what you call a  FOAF  who is an interior decorator with a thriving business on Chicago's wealthy North Shore.  He had just finished painting an elegant home in Wilmette, and was going around with a can of touch-up paint, making sure everything was perfect. He finished the last brush stroke, stepped back to admire his work, and kicked the paint can over onto the priceless Oriental rug.  What to do? At that moment, the client's yappy, snappy, obnoxious toy poodle, Fifi, trotted into the room.  Thinking quickly, the decorator scooped her up and dropped her into the puddle of paint, at the same time exclaiming loudly, "Fifi! Bad Dog! What have you done?"  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] A husband breaks a purple vase that belongs to his wife. she thinks the dog did it and she hates the dog. In her husband's absence she kills the dog and buries it in the back yard. the story ends with the husband confessing that in fact he and not the dog broke the vase, and the wife, who is contemplating the mound behind the rose bushes in the garden doesn't know what to say. Origins:  Shoving    a hapless pet into the incriminating mess is a traditional way of shifting blame. One of Brunvand's readers recalls hearing the spilled paint story in 1929, so this one has been with us for a while. Although pets can (and have!) spilled cans of paint, it's not reasonable to assume any self-respecting cat would have an interest in Dutch apple pie. A more believable way of presenting the story would be to change the food item into a tortire, a renowned French-Canadian meat pie. (Though tortire is good eating any time, it's a traditional Christmas Eve food in Quebecois households, often served at "Le Reveillion," the meal following Midnight Mass.) Another legend, one about kinky teen sex, employs the scapegoated pet theme. In "Stain Feign," teenagers who've decided to engage in anal sex on the family's brand new white sofa afterwards rush out to buy a puppy to have something to blame the mess on. Stain Feign Barbara "canine one one" Mikkelson Sightings:  Our "blamed pet" legend shows up in a 1972 Toni Morrison novel, Bluest Eye, in a scene involving two children, a cat, and a berry cobbler. Last updated:  1 August 2011 The Baby Train    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!   New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.   ISBN 0-393-30711-5   (pp. 132-134). Curses! Broiled Again!    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good to Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 61-63). Too Good to Be  The Big Book of Urban Legends In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies. A Democratic legislator declared that state aid fully fuels Texas charter schools while schools serving the vast bulk of students field less money. State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters. Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement. Texas charter schools--public schools with charters run most often by private nonprofit entities--have boomed since the 1995 Legislature authorized them by law. Such schools must meet state-set academic accountability standards, but theyre exempted from other laws affecting districts such as teacher certification and elementary school class-size limits. To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled. Lets break down Howards tweet by its factual elements. Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16. Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students. Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019. Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid. Howard said the states one-third share of what schools spend is why school property taxes are so high:  To the contrary, we asked Howard, isnt it changes in the value of local property tax bases that drive how much state aid a district is entitled to receive? Howard replied with a statement noting that a districts per-pupil tax wealth is key to how much state aid flows. When students leave a district for a charter (or private school or drop out), the (districts) property wealth per student increases as there are fewer students, and the state's required minimum share to the district is decreased, Howard said. The TEAs Culbertson separately responded by email: One of the primary drivers of the Texas school finance system is student attendance. If a student leaves a school district for any reason, including moving out of state, enrolling in another school district, public charter school, or private school (including home school), the original school district would no longer incur the costs of educating that student, and the original school districts total funding entitlement would be reduced. Howard said districts get less money because dollars go to charter schools: Cottingham told us Howard reached that conclusion by reviewing changes in per-student state spending on charter schools and districts. Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance:  SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018) According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019. Cottingham told us the fact that state aid to districts goes up or down based on the value of local tax bases helps explain why districts are projected to get increasingly less in state aid than charter schools. Charter schools, he said, can count by law on getting each years full average adjusted state-aid allotment in contrast to districts whose allocations are affected by how much theyre expected to reap in property taxes. By phone, Amanda Brownson of  the Texas Association of School Business Officials offered a similar analysis. Another facet noted by Cottingham: The state ponies up the full per-student entitlement cost of each student--costing the state more than each per-student payment sent to districts. Of late, the August 2018 TEA presentation says, charter schools draw an adjusted state allotment of $6,540--equivalent, the agency says, to what a small district receives. Meantime, the presentation says, more than 95 percent of students enrolled in districts are in districts getting less than $6,540 in state allotments. We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more. Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools. This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said. Our ruling Howard said Texas charter schools get all their per-student aid from the state while school districts, which serve 95 percent of students, get a third of their funding that way with the rest drawn from property taxes. Also, Howard said, districts get less because scarce dollars go to charter schools. Howards points about student enrollment and state funding going to charter schools and school districts hold up. Its also true that a student who leaves a district school to attend a charter school costs the district state aid while that student brings the charter school thousands of dollars more in per-pupil state aid than what the district would get. This dense tweet lacks the clarification that upticks or slides in local property values greatly affect whether a district faces ups or downs in state aid. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In June 2023, viral social media posts claimed to show Tom Cruise's eerily similar-looking stunt doubles posing in a photograph together. According to the posts, the menallegedly took his place to perform stunts duringthefilming of the latest "Mission Impossible" film. The image was fake. Not only did it show visual clues of being inauthentic  for instance, the "Tom Cruise" double in the middle appeared to be missing fingernails  we tracked down aFacebook user who took credit for makingthe image(as well as others like it) via an artificial-intelligence-powered (AI) software program. Facebook user the image Tom Cruise stunts double Tom is not even in the picture ,he took the picture pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH  Brother G.O (@OyinTGSPE) June 9, 2023 June 9, 2023  100% AI. Look at this. Tom Cruise does his own stunts like the Burj Khalifa and that motor stunt of a cliff, so he does not use stunt double. pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B  DarkKnight (@iamshinerk) June 7, 2023 June 7, 2023  When we looked closely at the three faces in the image, we noted that, while they looked eerilylike Cruise, they appeared to be images modeled off his face but with small differences in facial features. Their complexions also appearedinauthentically smooth, with wax-like skin.For comparison, we looked at2023pictures of Cruisetaken by Getty Images. 2023 pictures taken by Getty Images We also did a reverse-image search on Google and found no credible source saying the in-question image was a real photograph. reverse-image On June 3, 2023, a Facebook account for Midjourney, an AI-powered program that creates digital images based on prompts, shared the images of Cruise and his alleged "stunt doubles" in apostby Singapore-based user Ong Hui Woo. Woo wrote, "If you intend to copy and paste these photos on your website or your FB, please at least mentioned and give credit to the original creator (which is me) or Midjourney, the platform where all these images are created." post (Ong Hui Woo/Facebook) We reached out to Woo, who told us that he created the images on June 3, 2023, and posted them to the Midjourney Facebook page on the same day. Given that the in-question image has visual signs of being fake, that we did not find a reliable media outlet calling it real, and that we identified a Facebook user who took credit for its creation via an AI-image generator, we have rated this claim "Fake." We frequently fact-check AI-generated images and have many tips on how to identify them. AI-generated images many tips Evon, Dan. "Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches." Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/.Accessed 9 June 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Facebook Chat with Ong Hui Woo." 9 June 2023. Lee, David Emery, Jessica. "4 Tips for Spotting AI-Generated Pics." Snopes, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464595/artificial-intelligence-media-literacy/.Accessed 9 June 2023. "LIVE! Jimmy Kimmel Live! Airs Every Weeknight at 11:35 p.m. ET And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/jimmy-kimmel-live-airs-every-weeknight-at-11-35-p-m-et-and-news-photo/1247561509. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise at the 34th Annual Producers Guild Awards Held at The..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-at-the-34th-annual-producers-guild-awards-held-news-photo/1247493313. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise Walks on the Grid Prior to the Running of the Formula 1..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-walks-on-the-grid-prior-to-the-running-of-the-news-photo/1253020214. Accessed 9 June 2023. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. In early March 2021, Snopes readers asked about screenshots of what appeared to be a scam circulating on the payment platform Venmo. The alleged scam shows a Venmo user sending $600 to another user and then requesting it back, claiming to have sent it to the wrong person:   Although we don't know the intentions of the Venmo user involved in the above exchange (and we cropped the person's name out for privacy reasons), sending money to strangers and then requesting it back is a known type of scam on Venmo. known The Dayton Daily News, a Dayton, Ohio-based daily newspaper, described how the scam works: Even Venmo is aware of these scams and puts a warning on its website that Venmo is designed for payments between people who trust each other because there is no protection for the buyer or seller. Therefore, its important you dont accept or give money to strangers who could potentially be scammers. For example, scammers connect stolen credit cards to Venmo and use them to transfer money to unsuspecting users. If you send the money back to the scammer, he or she will delete the stolen credit card from the account and add his or her own card in its place. Others send screenshots of fake emails that make it seem like theyve paid you through the app, when they actually havent.  The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also warns against this type of scam, in which a cash app user "accidentally" sends a stranger a payment and then requests that they send it back. The BBB advises that if you are targeted in an exchange like this, don't send the money back. Instead, ask the other person to simply cancel the transaction. warns against "The sender can request that the vendor cancel the transaction. If the person refuses, its probably a scam," the BBB states. The BBB also encourages cash app users to check their security settings and to link their accounts to credit cards instead of debit cards or bank accounts because, in the event that you are scammed, it's easier to recoup the money if you charged it to a credit card. Did U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who characterizes himself as a champion of the middle class, vote for a $525-billion tax increase on that group?That's one assertion in atelevision adby Republican challenger Barry Hinckley.After raising an allegation about insider trading, which Whitehouse has strongly denied, the commercial says Whitehouse voted to raise taxes on middle-class families. The phrase $525 billion tax increase on the middle class flashes on the screen.The commercial offers no further information about what Hinckley is talking about, so we asked the Hinckley campaign for its backup.Campaign manager Patrick Sweeney said the ad refers to the Affordable Care Act, the health care plan often known as Obamacare, which Whitehouse supported. PolitiFact has examined similar claims, including one in which Hinckley declared that the law will add trillions of dollars in debt, a claimwe ruled False.The government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation, designed to expand health coverage, will generate $525 billion in revenue. A lower estimate by Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation predicted it will bring in more than $437.8 billion. Sweeney said the ad is using the CBO estimate.But there are a few significant facts the ad doesn't mention.First, that's not money raised over one year. It'sover 10 years, from 2010 through 2019 for legislation that is being gradually phased in. In 2019, annual revenue is expected to have risen to $88.2 billion.Second, most of the money won't be coming from the middle class, as the ad states.For example, a huge chunk of the revenue, $210 billion of the $437.8 billion in the Joint Committee estimate, comes from both a higher Medicare payroll tax to be paid by individuals earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples filing jointly) and from a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income if your income is already high.Those take effect in 2013 and are taxes that middle class families will not see.Other taxes aren't geared to the middle class either, although all taxpayers may have to foot the bill indirectly as the extra costs are factored into the goods and services they buy.They include a fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers (which will raise an estimated $27 billion); an excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices ($20 billion); and a fee on health insurance providers ($60.1 billion).In addition, there's the excise tax on indoor tanning services (expected to raise $2.7 billion) and the stricter limit on deducting medical expenses on tax returns, which is expected to raise $15.2 billion. Both will have a more direct effect on the well-tanned or very-ill middle class.One other element of the law that will affect the middle class is the provision of Obamacare known as theindividual mandate. It requires people to pay an annual penalty if they don't buy health insurance. It takes effect in 2014, starting off at a minimum of $95 for an individual and rising to $695 per year in 2016. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that controversial provision by characterizing it as a tax, not a penalty.Is this a tax/penalty on the middle class?The CBO, the source used by the Hinckley campaign, has estimated that by 2016, 55 percent of the money collected via the individual mandate will come from people with incomes in the top 20 percent, which is a family of four making roughly $120,000 or more.So less than half the money will be coming from middle class Americans.How much money is involved?About $4 billion in 2016. The amount coming from the middle class and lower class: roughly $1.8 billion.To put that in perspective, $1.8 billion is 3 percent of the $57 billion or so Obamacare will be raising from everyone in 2016.Our rulingBarry Hinckley said Sheldon Whitehouse voted for a $525 billion tax increase on the middle class.The ad doesn't say that it's really talking about Obamacare, and that the money is designed to help pay for health coverage for the uninsured, many of whom are in the middle class.It also doesn't point out that the $525 billion is spread out over 10 years, through 2019. Most of it doesn't come from the middle class.And of the $4 billion the government expects to collect each year from people who choose not to purchase health insurance, less than half will come from the middle class.The claim in the Hinckley ad is so ridiculously off base, we rate itPants on Fire! (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)